Skip to content


Janaki Ravindaran Vs. Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, Rep. through its State Information Commissioner, Chennai and Others - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai Madurai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberW.P.(MD)No. 6805 of 2010 & M.P(MD)No. 2 of 2010
Judge
AppellantJanaki Ravindaran
RespondentTamil Nadu State Information Commission, Rep. through its State Information Commissioner, Chennai and Others
Excerpt:
.....dated 07.04.2010, in na.ka.no.20643/2009/c2 and quash the same. 2. the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 03.12.2008, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is illegal and void in the eye of law. 3. the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice if the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 03.12.2008 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.04.2010, are set aside and if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent directing him to decide the matter, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and interested.....
Judgment:

(Prayer:Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records relating to the order of the first respondent dated 03.12.2008 in Case No.8418/Enquiry/2008 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent dated 07.04.2010 in Na.ka.No.20643/2009/C2 and quash the same.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 03.12.2008, in Case No.8418/Enquiry/2008 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.04.2010, in Na.ka.No.20643/2009/C2 and quash the same.

2. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first respondent has passed the impugned order, dated 03.12.2008, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and therefore, it is illegal and void in the eye of law.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that it would suffice if the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 03.12.2008 and the consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.04.2010, are set aside and if the matter is remitted back to the first respondent directing him to decide the matter, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and interested parties, if any, within a specified period.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents have no objection for such an order being passed by this Court.

5. In such circumstances, the impugned order passed by the first respondent, dated 03.12.2008, and consequential order passed by the second respondent, dated 07.04.2010 are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the first respondent, to pass an order, afresh, on merits and in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, as well as the interested parties, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

6. With the above direction, this Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //