SUPERINTENDENT OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT CHENNAI Vs. REGISTRARTAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard both sides.

(2.) The writ petition is filed by the Superintendent of office of the Public Prosecutor, High Court, Madras, seeking to challenge the summons issued by the first respondent, Tamil Nadu Information Commission. The summons came to be issued on a complaint made by the second respondent, dated 6.12.2008. The second respondent initially applied to the Additional Public Prosecutor, who also was designated as the Information Officer of the office of the Public Prosecutor under the Right To Information Act (for short RTI Act), dated 7.7.2008. In that letter, he sought for records relating to the FIR in Dharmapuri City Police Station in Crime No. 2208 of 2001 as well as the judgment of this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 699 of 2005, dated 21.2.2008. The petitioner wanted to have Photostat copies of all the documents relating to these two references from his office, including the office noting found in the file. He also wanted to have the copy of the opinion tendered by the Public Prosecutor regarding filing of an appeal against the order of this Court.

(3.) He further wanted to know as to who was responsible for taking action against persons on the basis of observation made in paragraph 18 of the said judgment. In case, their office had written any letters, he wanted to have Photostat copies of those letters along with annexures. In case, if they do not have any such records in their office, they were asked to act in terms of Section 6(3) of the RTI Act.