Madras High Court
Tamil Nadu Newsprint And Papers Ltd vs Tamil Nadu State Information ... on 11 November, 2022
Author: S.S.Sundar
Bench: S.S.Sundar
W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :11.11.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016
and W.M.P.Nos.12736, 27407 & 27697 of 2016
Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd,
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
A.Manikandan,
Assistant Manager – HR (Legal)
Having Office at
Kagithapuram – 639 136
Karur. ...Petitioner
in both cases
-Vs-
1.Tamil Nadu State Information Commission
No.2, Thiyagarayasalai, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
2.M.Subbarayan ...Respondents
in both cases
Prayer in W.P.No.31568 of 2016:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari call for the
records and to quash the impugned order dated 18.08.2016 in Case
No.SA8477/Enquiry/B/2015 passed by the 1st respondent.
Prayer in W.P.No.14555 of 2016:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari call for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
1/12
W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016
records and to quash the impugned order dated 10.03.2016 in Case
No.28666/Enquiry/B/2014 passed by the 1st respondent.
For Petitioner
in both cases : Mr.V.M.Shivakumar
For R1
in both cases : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopalan
for G.R.Associates,
Senior Counsel
For R2
in both cases : Mr.P.Srinivas
COMMON ORDER
These writ petitions are filed for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned orders dated 18.08.2016 and 10.03.2016 in case Nos.SA8477/Enquiry/B/2015 and 28666/Enquiry/2014 passed by the 1st respondent.
2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of these writ petitions are as follows:
3. The petitioner is a leading manufacturer of Printing and Writing Paper, other allied products and cement. The petitioner has emerged as one of the world's largest bagasse-based paper mills. Bagasse is a residual sugar cane https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 material after sugar cane juice extraction for sugar making.
4. The 2nd respondent submitted a petition on 06.03.2015 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as RTI Act] before the petitioner for information about DAP and Urea procured by the petitioner company from 2008 to 2012. It is a case of the petitioner that a criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate-I Court, Kulithalai in respect of certain illegalities in the matter of procurement of Urea with subsidy. Referring to Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, the application of the 2nd respondent was rejected by order dated 06.04.2015 on the ground that a criminal case is pending. The 2nd respondent thereafter filed an appeal dated 23.04.2015 before the First Appellate Authority who rejected the appeal by order dated 16.05.2015. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent preferred an appeal before the 1st respondent on 16.06.2015.
5. It is to be noted earlier the 1st respondent rejected a similar representation of the 2nd respondent by order dated 10.03.2016. Challenging that order dated 10.03.2016, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.14555 of 2016 and obtained an order of stay. Despite the order of stay granted by this Court was in force, the 1st respondent appears to have https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 3/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 passed an order on 18.08.2016 on the application dated 06.03.2015 filed by the 2nd respondent. It is the case of the petitioner that the 1st respondent disposed of the application with the specific directions even though the 1st respondent was aware of the pendency of the writ petition before this Court and the order of stay granted therein.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order which is the subject matter of W.P.No.31568 of 2016 cannot be sustained as the direction was in the nature of asking the petitioner to appoint Public Information Officers to each and every department of the petitioner company purely based on the officer of the 1st petitioner who participated in the enquiry.
7. For the sake of convenience, the communication sent by the 2nd respondent dated 06.03.2015 under the RTI Act read as follows:
@1/jkpH;ehL fhfpj Miy. g[fS:hpy;
bray;gLk; epWtdk; 2008 $dthp Kjy; 2012
ork;gh; tiuahd fhyj;jpy; jdJ fHpt[ePiu
Rj;jk; bra;J mDg;g[k; fhhpaj;jpw;F urahd
cu';fshd a{hpah kw;Wk; o/V/gp cu';fis ve;j epWtdj;jplkpUe;J bfhs;Kjy; bra;jJ> https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 4/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 mjw;fhd eilKiwfs;. mJbjhlh;ghd fkpl;ofspd; eltof;iffs;. kw;Wk; bghJ nkyhsh;. nkyhz; ,af;Fehpd; eltof;iffs;
(Proceedings) kw;Wk; eph;thf FGtpy; ,J
bjhlh;ghf vLj;j Kot[fs; ml';fpa
KGf;nfhg;gpd; efy; tH';f nfl;Lbfhs;fpnwd;/@
8. The order dated 06.04.2015 passed by the petitioner rejecting the above application of the 2nd respondent read as follows:
@jh';fs; Vw;fdnt. ,J bjhlh;ghf
02/06/2014 kw;Wk; 03/06/2014 Mfpa njjpfspy;
kDf;fs; mDg;gp mjw;F ,e;j bghJ mjpfhu
mikg;g[. ,J bjhlh;ghd tHf;F Fspj;jiy
Fw;wtpay; ePjpkd;wj;jpy; epYitapy; cs;s
fhuzj;jhy; ,j;jfty;fis jfty; mwpa[k;
chpikr; rl;lk; gphpt[ 8(1)(h)?d; fPH; tH';f
,ayhJ vd 24/06/2014?k; njjpapl;l gjpy;
thapyhf j';fSf;F bjhptpj;Js;sJ/@
9. The 2nd respondent challenged the order dated 06.04.2015 before the First Appellate Authority who confirmed the order. Thereafter a further appeal was filed before the 1st respondent and the order of 1st respondent in the further appeal read as follows:
@6/ ,e;j NH;epiyapy; ,d;iwa tprhuizapy; Kotpy;. ,t;thizaj;jhy;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 5/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 fPH;f;fz;l Mizfs; gpwg;gpf;fg;gLfpd;wd:-
1/,d;iwa tprhuizapy; M$uhd bghJj;
jfty; mYtyh;. kDjhuh;fs; nfhUk;
jfty;fs; jk;kplk; ,Uf;fhJ vd;Wk;.
Midj;J eph;thf eltof;iffs; Fwpj;J
jkf;F bjhpahJ vd;Wk;. rk;ge;jg;gl;l
Jiwapd; cah; mjpfhhpfsplkpUe;J
tpgu';fis nfl;L bgw;Wf; bfhz;L jfty;
tH';f ntz;a[s;sJ vdj; bjhptpj;jij Rl;of;
fhl;o. ,t;thizak; jfty; bgWk; chpikr;
rl;lk;. 2005?y; Twpa tHpfhl;Ljypd;nghpYk;.
jfty; bgWk; chpikr; rl;lg;gphpt[
19(8)(a)(ii)?d;go. ,t;thizfs; fpilf;fg;
bgw;w 30 jpd';fSf;Fs; jkpH;ehL fhfpj
Miy epWtdj;jpd; cs;s xt;bthU
Jiwf;Fk; Kiwahd. bghWg;ghd cah;
mjpfhhpia bghJj; jfty; mYtyuhf
epakdk; bra;a ,t;thizak; jiyth; kw;Wk;
nkyhz;ik ,af;Feh;. jkpH;ehL fhfpj Miy
epWtdk;. brd;id mth;fis ,jd; K:yk;
mwpt[Wj;JfpwJ/ nkYk;. mt;thW jkpH;ehL
fhfpj Miy epWtdj;jpd; xt;bthU
Jiwf;Fk; jdpj;jdpna bghJj; jfty;
mYtyh; epakdk; bra;ag;gl;l tpguj;ij
,t;thizaj;jpw;F cldoahf mDg;gp
itf;FkhWk; ,jd; K:yk; mtUf;F
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
6/12
W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016
mwpt[Wj;JfpwJ/
2/kDjhuUf;F mth; nfhhpa jfty;fis
,t;thizfs; fpilf;fg; bgw;w 30
jpd';fSf;Fs; rl;lg;gphpt[ 7(6)?d;go
fl;lzkpd;wp. Xg;g[ifr;rPl;Lld; Toa gjpt[j;
jghypy; mDg;gp itj;J. tH';fg;gl;l jftypd; efy; kw;Wk; kDjhuh; Vw;gspg;g[ bra;j xg;g[if ml;ilapd; efy; Mfpatw;iw ,t;thizaj;jpw;F mDg;gp itf;f bghJj;
jfty; mYtyUf;F mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/
3/kDjhuh;. bghJj; jfty;
mYtyhplkpUe;J ,t;thizfs; fpilf;fg;
bgw;w 30 jpd';fSf;Fs; jfty; bgwg;glhj
gl;rj;jpy;. rl;lg;gphpt[ 18(1)?d; fPHhd xU g[fhh;
kDit ,t;thizaj;jpw;F mDg;gp ghpfhuk;
fhz ,jd; K:yk; mwpt[Wj;jg;gLfpwJ/
4/nkw;Fwpj;j Mizfs; eP';fyhf.
tHf;fpd; tprhuiz ,j;Jld; Koj;J
itf;fg;gLfpwJ@/
10. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner highlighted the first part of the order issuing direction to the petitioner to appoint Public Information Officers for each department of the petitioner's corporation.
Though such direction is contrary and is not permissible, the learned counsel https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 7/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 appearing for the 1st respondent submitted that the nature of direction in the first portion of the order was on account of the response of the Public Information Officer (PIO) who was present at the time of enquiry. The order impugned has recorded the submission made by the Public Information Officer to the 1 st respondent which is to the effect that the petitioner has different departments like Procurement Department, Manufacture Department, Sales Department, Accounts Department and HR Department and that every department is functioning independently, and that the information sought for by the petitioner will be available only with the head of the concerned departments and that therefore, the Public Information Officer did not know the requested information or the action initiated by the concerned officers of each department. The Information Officer appears to have stated further in defence which are extracted in the order in para 3 of the impugned order.
11. It may be true that Public Information Officer has reported to the 1 st respondent as if he cannot get information from every department of the petitioner in a short time and that the information sought by the 2nd respondent is not available with him as such information does not relate to his department. However, this cannot be a reason to pass such improper orders beyond the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 8/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 jurisdiction of the 1st respondent. By the nature of the order, the 1st respondent has directed the petitioner to appoint Information Officers to every department of the petitioner and to report the same to the 1st respondent. This Court is unable to find any such power conferred on the 1st respondent from the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, the 1st part of the order or direction directing the petitioner to appoint enough number of higher officials as Public Information Officer to every department is unwarranted and without jurisdiction.
12. As regards the other direction, this Court is of the view that the petitioner can be directed to furnish the information which is available with the petitioner. From the application submitted by the 2nd respondent the Public Information Officer of the petitioner dated 02.06.2014, it is seen that the petitioner has sought for the following informations.
@jfty;fs;:
1/j';fs; epWtdk; 2008 Kjy; 2010 tiu 3 Mz;Lfspy; jhe;njhzp tptrha bghwpapay;
nrit Tl;Lwt[ r';fj;jpd; K:yk; bfhs;Kjy;
bra;ag;gl;l DAP kw;Wk; a{hpah bfhs;Kjy;
bra;a j';fs; epWtdj;jpd; cah; mjpfhhpfspd;
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 9/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 cj;jut[fs; ml';fpa eph;thf Miz efy;
tH';FkhW nfl;Lf;bfhs;fpnwd;/ 2/j';fs; epWtdk; 2008 Kjy; 2010 tiu 3 Mz;Lfspy; jhe;njhzp tptrha bghwpapay;
nrit Tl;Lwt[ r';fj;jpd; K:yk; bfhs;Kjy;
bra;ag;gl;l DAP kw;Wk; a{hpah cu';fspd;
njjpthhpahd tpgug;gl;oay;/ 3/j';fs; epWtdk; 2008 Kjy; 2010 tiu ntW VnjDk; epWtd';fspy; bfhs;Kjy;
bra;ag;gl;l tpgug;gl;oay;/ 4/j';fs; epWtdk; 2008 Kjy; 2010 tiu 3 Mz;Lfspy; jhe;njhzp tptrha bghwpapay;
nrit Tl;Lwt[ r';fj;jpd; K:yk; bfhs;Kjy;
bra;ag;gl;l DAP kw;Wk; a{hpah cu';fspd;
njjpthhpahd tpgug;gl;oay;/
5/j';fs; epWtdk; jw;nghJ ve;j
epWtdj;jplkpUe;J a{hpah. DAP cu';fs;
bfhs;Kjy; bra;ag;gLfpwJ> mjw;fhd eph;thf cj;jutpd; efy;@/
13. It is seen that the application dated 06.03.2015 submitted by the 2nd respondent was refused only on the ground that the 1st respondent passed an order stating that the information on the five issues sought by the 2nd respondent cannot be given in view of Section 8(1) (h) of RTI Act and the criminal case is pending before the Judicial Magistrate Court. When a direction https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 10/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 issued by the 1st respondent is challenged in W.P.No.14555 of 2016 and there was an order of stay in the writ petition, impugned order in the second writ petition was given in favour of the 2nd respondent. The information sought for in the first and second applications of the 2nd respondent is the same. However there is nothing on record that the order of this Court in the first writ petition was produced before the 1st respondent before passing the impugned order.
14. However, the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent regarding the direction to furnish information to the 2nd respondent cannot be faulted. However, the 1st respondent’s order directing the petitioner to appoint sufficient number of responsible officers as Public Information Officers cannot be countenanced. Therefore the direction passed in para 6(1) of the order of 1st respondent dated 18.08.2016 is set aside and the remaining direction is upheld.
15. As a result, these writ petitions stands disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
11.11.2022 cda https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 11/12 W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 S.S.SUNDAR. J., cda To
1.A.Manikandan, Authorised Signatory Tamil Nadu Newsprint and Papers Ltd, Assistant Manager – HR (Legal) Having Office at Kagithapuram – 639 136 Karur.
2.Tamil Nadu State Information Commission No.2, Thiyagarayasalai, Teynampet, Chennai – 600 018.
W.P.Nos.31568 & 14555 of 2016 11.11.2022 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 12/12