Notices would be sent to the officials including Chief Information Commissioner, Registrar General of Madras High Court and Public Information Officer, Madras High Court (Registrar-Administration).
The petitioner S Kathiresan, submitted that he sent his first application for the report on Nov 25, 2014. But there was no response.
He filed the second appeal to the CIC on February 21. But there was no reply for that too.
The PIO was liable to pay Rs 25,000 as penalty under RTI act, he contended.
He also said that the court should direct the CIC to dispose his petition within stipulated time. Besides the Registrar general should be directed to take disciplinary action against the registrar for his wilful failure to provide the information sought by him, he submitted.
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app
