BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24/06/2008 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.JYOTHIMANI W.P.(MD)No.5526 of 2008 C.Zophar Jothi Paul ... Petitioner vs. 1.The Chief Educational Officer Jailani Street, Thoothukudi. 2.The Director of School Education College Road, Chennai. ... Respondents PRAYER Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, directing the 2nd respondent to provide the information sought for by the petitioner under Section 7 of Right to Information Act 2005, pursuant to his official communication in Na.Ka.No.14220/G2/E3/08 dated 26.02.2008. !For Petitioner ... Mr.R.Anand ^For Respondents... Mr.D.Sasikumar Government Advocate :ORDER
Mr.D.Sasikumar, learned Government Advocate, takes notice on behalf of the
respondents. By consent, this Writ Petition is taken up for final disposal.
2.The Writ petitioner is stated to be a Teacher who looks after the care
of down trodden people. He is also a member of C.S.I. Church, Thoothukudi which
comes under the administration of Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocesan. It appears
that there has been some dispute in respect to the claim made by the
Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocesan about the minority status of the schools under
their control. In order to know the real position about the minority status or
otherwise of the said Diocese, the petitioner is stated to have made a
representation dated 20.02.2008 to the second respondent seeking for certain
information as per the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the particulars are as
follows:
“i. Which Trust maintains the Schools run under the Thoothukudi-Nazareth
Diocesan? The said Trust when it was registered? Where it was registered? And
how many members are there in the said Trust?
ii. Whether corporate body has been constituted for the Schools run under the
Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocesan?, if so how many members are there and who are
those members?
iii. Whether certificate of minority status has been obtained by the
Thoothukudi-Nazareth Diocesan for their educational institutions from the
Tamilnadu Government? If so which year it was obtained?”.
3.After such request was made to the second respondent under Right to
Information Act 2005, it is seen that the second respondent in his communication
dated 26.02.2008 addressed to the first respondent, has directed the first
respondent to furnish the information to the second respondent so as to enable
the second respondent to inform the petitioner. The complaint of the petitioner
that in spite of the direction given by the second respondent to the first
respondent, there was no further progress, which has necessitated the petitioner
to file this Writ Petition for a direction against the second respondent to
provide information sought for under Right to Information Act in furtherance of
the proceedings initiated by the second respondent dated 26.02.2008.
4.Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government
Advocate for the respondents.
5.Considering the above fact that pursuant to the representation made by
the petitioner dated 20.02.2008, the second respondent has in-fact initiated
proceedings by his communication dated 26.02.2008, this Writ Petition is
disposed of with a direction to the second respondent to furnish information
sought for by the petitioner as per his representation dated 20.02.2008,
expeditiously in any event, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.
tk/mpk
To
1.The Chief Educational Officer
Jailani Street,
Thoothukudi.
2.The Director of School Education
College Road,
Chennai.