Smt. Swapna Debbarma vs The State Of Tripura

Heard Mr. P. Rathod, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. Kohinoor N. Bhattacharjee, learned GA appearing for the State-respondents.

By means of filing this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

The facts of the case, lies in a narrow compass, is that, the petitioner is the legally married wife of the respondent no. 4. The petitioner as well as the respondent no. 4 are government employees. During continuance of their conjugal life, the respondent no. 4 subjected the petitioner to cruelty following filing of litigations. The respondent no. 4 filed a petition before the learned Judge, Family Court, Agartala, for dissolution of his marriage with the petitioner which was dismissed. Challenging the same, the respondent no. 4 preferred an appeal before this High Court which was registered as MAT App. 4 of 2014. This High Court by judgment dated 10.03.2016 dismissed the appeal. During continuation of the conjugal dispute, the respondent no. 4 started to maintain relation with another land during existence of his marriage with the petitioner. The petitioner obtained all documents which established that the respondent no. 4 had married that lady which is against the service rules. The petitioner submitted complaint before the authority of the respondent no. 4. Thereafter, the petitioner raised her by filing a writ petition before this High Court for a direction upon the State respondents to take legal action against the respondent no. 4 for violating the TCS (Conduct) Rules and the same was registered as WP(C) 227 of 2023. After hearing both parties, this Court by its order dated 04.05.2023 disposed of the writ petition with a direction upon the State respondents to respond to the complaints made by the petitioner in accordance with law. Thereafter, the petitioner communicated with the respondent no. 2 by her letters, but the same remained un-responded. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application on 24.06.2025 before the respondent no.3 seeking information as to the steps taken on her complaint dated 21.08.2023, but till date the respondent no. 3 did not respond to the said communication, which prompted the petitioner to approach this High Court for a mandamus by filing this instant writ petition.

When the matter has been taken up for hearing, learned GA has submitted that the respondent no. 3 by its letter dated 22.09.2023 supplied information to the petitioner under RTI Act, 2005 wherein the respondent no. 3 has provided all the information/documents sought for by the petitioner. The said application has been taken on record.

Mr. Rathod, learned counsel raised serious objection on the said submission and has submitted that the said communication of respondent no. 3 has not been supplied to him and he has no information/knowledge about issuance of such communication and objected to receive the said communication.

This court has meticulously perused the record in hand. From the correspondence dated 22.09.2023, which has been placed by learned GA before this Court today, reveals that the respondent No.3 in compliance of the RTI application dated 31.07.2023 of the petitioner has furnished the information to the petitioner. Thus, the grievance raised by the petitioner has been redressed accordingly. From the said correspondence it is also revealed that notice upon the respondent no. 4 was served on 08.09.2023 seeking the views of respondent no. 4 with regard to the IPR to which the respondent no. 4 disagreed to share his personal datas. Since, the grievance of the petitioner has been addressed to nothing survives in the writ petition.

In view of the above, the instant writ petition is liable to be dismissed, and the same is accordingly dismissed.

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed.