Justice Lakshminarayanan Item 34, WP 39448 of 2025, TR Ramesh Vs Public Information officer of the state. B. Jagannath appeared

Item 34, WP 39448 of 2025, TR Ramesh Vs Public Information officer of the state. B. Jagannath appeared for the Petitioner, SGP Arun Natrajan appeared for Hr and Ce Department & Vigneshwaran Chandrasekar appeared for State Information Commissioner. The Honourable Court recorded the fact that it is not an adverse litigation. Counter was filed by the SGP for Hr and Ce – wherein it has been stated that they are complying with provisions of the RTI Act and that the Respondents are uploading documents as and when the same are issued, in the website Https://tnhrce.gov.in Per contra the learned counsel for Petitioner, B. Jagannath, vehemently opposed and disputed this fact that most of the tenders, government orders, reports, estimates, Order of the Joint Commissioner & Commissioner under Section 78, land details and numerous other documents are not being properly uploaded which is in clear violation of Section 4 of the RTI act. The compliance of the Act ought to have been made by the Hr and Ce Department in 2006, as it’s within 120 days that the information should be furnished and uploaded. Also, the Secretary to Tourism has also not uploaded the documents for civil works and tenders in the website making the same to be difficult to be accessed by the General public at large. It is most unfortunate that these documents are not being published & he further states that more than 1,00,000(One Lakh) documents are yet to be uploaded though all have been scanned by the Respondent Department. The Honourable Court then opined that as per Section 4 of the RTI Act all those that has to be made available should be hosted online in the website. The learned SGP for Respondents further affirmed that he is ready to give a technical presentation in person from the website as to the details of the documents uploaded. The Honourable Court then sought from the Petitioner a detailed reply to the Counter – to highlight and file as documentary evidence through Typed set as to the information which are not uploaded as mandated by the Act. Furthermore, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for Petitioner that the State Commissioner, has kept enquiry pending for many of the Complaints filed by the Petitioner and that still final orders to furnish information has still not been passed by the Respondents. To this also the State Information commissioner was directed to look into the same if the hearings can be completed at the earliest. The Honourable Court then directed the Learned Counsel for Petitioner to serve advance copies to the Respondents and file a detailed Reply and typed set of papers and further adjourned the matter at the next date of hearing 20.11.2025