Farmer’s RTI Challenge Over Milk-Supply Rates Fails, Madras HC Finds All 7 Queries Answered

In brief

The question

Whether the information supplied in response to all seven RTI queries was incomplete or insufficient so as to warrant interference with the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition.

The court held

The Court answered the issues against the appellant, found no error or infirmity in the Single Judge’s order, and dismissed the writ appeal.

It also directed

No order as to costs was made.

01Facts

The appellant, an agriculturist supplying milk to a Government Milk Cooperative Society, sought information through an application under the Right to Information Act concerning seven queries, including issues related to milk-supply rates.

p. 3 · ¶ 5

After pursuing appeals before the First Appellate Authority and the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, the Commission found that information had been provided for queries 1, 2, 3 and 6, and directed the authorities to provide information for queries 4, 5 and 7.

p. 4 · ¶ 6

The Public Information Officer subsequently supplied details for queries 4 and 7 and stated that no report was available for query 5 because no defects had been found during inspections.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 7–8

The Single Judge dismissed the appellant’s writ petition, and the appellant challenged that decision in this writ appeal.

p. 2, 5 · ¶ 1, 9

02Issues

i.Whether the information supplied in response to all seven RTI queries was incomplete or insufficient so as to warrant interference with the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition.

pp. 2–3 · ¶ 2 · p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

ii.Whether the Single Judge’s order dismissing the writ petition disclosed any error or infirmity warranting appellate interference.

p. 5 · ¶ 10

03Law Applied

The Court considered the Right to Information Act framework through the appellant’s information request and the decisions of the First Appellate Authority and the State Information Commission.

pp. 3–5 · ¶ 5–8

It applied the case-specific principle that where the information sought has been answered or the directed disclosure has been provided, mere dissatisfaction with the response does not, without more, justify interference by the writ court.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10

04Reasoning

The Court reviewed the record and found that queries 1, 2, 3 and 6 had been addressed before the Commission, while the directions concerning queries 4, 5 and 7 had been complied with by the Public Information Officer.

pp. 4–5 · ¶ 6–8

The response to query 5 explained that no inspection-defect report existed because no defects had been found. In those circumstances, the Court held that all seven queries had been duly answered and that the appellant’s dissatisfaction with the information did not establish error in the Single Judge’s decision.

p. 5 · ¶ 9–10