Widow’s RTI Complaint Over House-Site Patta Information: Madras HC Gives State Information Commission 16 Weeks To Decide

In brief

The question

1. Whether the State Information Commission should be directed to consider the petitioner’s complaint concerning her RTI request and pass appropriate orders.

The court held

The Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the first respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Information Commission, to look into the petitioner’s matter and pass appropriate orders within 16 weeks from receipt of a copy of the order.

It also directed

No costs were ordered.

01Facts

The petitioner stated that she had been allotted a one-cent house site under G.O.Ms.No.359 dated 29 September 2009, but that the site had not been properly demarcated and was later taken over by the Government and placed in the possession of Karimedu Police Station.

p. 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 3

In earlier writ petitions, the High Court had directed the jurisdictional Tahsildar to survey, measure and demarcate the assigned sites.

p. 2 · p. 3 · ¶ 3

After making a representation concerning restoration of her habitation, the petitioner sought information under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act), on 21 December 2024, and subsequently pursued a first appeal and a second appeal.

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–4

She then complained to the State Information Commission under Section 18(1), alleging that correct and detailed information had not been provided.

p. 4 · ¶ 4

The State submitted that the Collector’s office had provided information on 15 December 2025, while the Commission stated that it would consider the petitioner’s application and issue directions within 16 weeks.

p. 5 · ¶ 5–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether the State Information Commission should be directed to consider the petitioner’s complaint concerning her RTI request and pass appropriate orders.

p. 5 · ¶ 6 · p. 6 · ¶ 7

ii.2. Whether the Court should prescribe a time limit for the Commission to do so.

p. 5 · ¶ 6 · p. 6 · ¶ 7

03Law Applied

The petitioner’s request and appeals were made under Sections 6(1) and 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and her complaint to the State Information Commission was made under Section 18(1).

pp. 3–4 · ¶ 3–4

The judgment does not set out or interpret the statutory tests under these provisions, cite precedent, or articulate a broader legal doctrine; it resolves the matter by directing the Commission to consider the petitioner’s matter and pass appropriate orders within a specified period.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

Provisions in the judgment · 3 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Right to Information Act, 2005 Section 18 Section 6 Section 19

04Reasoning

The Court noted the petitioner’s grievance that her RTI request had not been adequately addressed, the respondents’ submission that information had been supplied, and the Commission’s undertaking to consider the matter within 16 weeks.

p. 5 · ¶ 5–6

It did not decide whether the information supplied was correct or complete, or determine the merits of the petitioner’s underlying land-related grievance.

p. 6 · ¶ 7

Instead, it directed the Commission to look into the petitioner’s matter and pass appropriate orders within the period undertaken.

p. 6 · ¶ 7