Dismissed

A Aravind Reddy v. Prl.Secretary ( Endowment-I) and 3 Others

Andhra Pradesh HC2 Aug 2019WP(PIL)/203/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a PIL challenging a denial of information under the RTI Act by a religious institution. The Court held that since the main petitions challenging this issue were disposed of by the Single Judge, no further adjudication is warranted, leaving the amendment of the Act to the Legislature.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is closed; pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

A Aravind Reddy Vs Prl.Secretary ( Endowment-I)… — RTI and Transparency | Andhra Pradesh HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶3

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.203 of 2017

¶4

ORDER: (Per Hon’ble The Acting Chief Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶5

The present writ petition came to be filed seeking the following

¶6

relief:

¶7

”For the reasons stated in the accompanying affidavit, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ declaring the action of the Respondents in denying to provide information sort under the RTI Act, 2005 vide Letter Rc. No: A1/1208/2013 Dated: 01.07.2017 against the application of the Petitioner Dated: 11.06.2017 based on interim orders by the Hon’ble High Court in WPMP no. 8331 of 2012 in W.P.No. 6560 of 2012 and WPMP no. 31857 of 2014 in WP No 25472 of 2014 as illegal, arbitrary and violation of principles of natural justice apart from violation of the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 and rights guaranteed under Article 14 19 and 21 of Constitution of India consequently direct the Respondent No: 4 to provide the information sort under Petitioners Application Dated 11.06.2017 and pass such other order or orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

¶8

Though the writ petition came to be filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity, but as the averments in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition disclose that the cause espoused is in public interest, the writ petition was converted into a public interest litigation.

¶9

It appears that the petitioner sought certain information from the fourth respondent-Public Information Officer (Chief Executive Officer), Srisailam Bramarambika Mallikarjuna Swamy Devasthanam, Srisailam, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act of 2005’). However, the fourth respondent, vide letter dated 01.07.2017, informed the petitioner that such information could not be furnished, as the Act of 2005 is not applicable to the Devasthanam, in view of the interim orders passed

¶10

¶11

by the combined High Court in W.P.M.P.No.8331 of 2012 in W.P.No.6560 of 2012 and W.P.M.P.No.31857 of 2014 in W.P.No.25472 of 2014.

¶12

The aforesaid writ petitions were filed challenging invocation of the provisions of the Act of 2005 to religious institutions. Based on the interim orders passed therein, referred to above, the information sought by the petitioner under the Act of 2005 could not be furnished. While so, it is brought to the notice of this Court that the main writ petitions themselves, viz., W.P.Nos.6560 of 2012 and 25472 of 2014, were disposed of, along with a batch of similar writ petitions, by common order dated 14.11.2018 passed by a learned Judge of the combined High Court for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The learned single Judge held that the religious institutions like temples, churches, mosques, which are not financed/funded by the Government, do not fall within the purview of the Act of 2005, and accordingly, allowed the writ petitions, setting aside the memo issued by the Commissioner of Endowments impugned therein.

¶13

In the light of the above decision, we feel that no adjudication is warranted in this writ petition. It is for the Legislature to take steps for amendment of the Act in terms of the observations made by the learned single Judge in the aforesaid common order.

¶14

The writ petition is accordingly closed.

¶15

As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.

¶16

____________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ACJ

¶17

__________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J

¶18

Dt: 02.08.2019 IBL

¶19

¶20

HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR

¶21

AND

¶22

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY

¶23

WRIT PETITION (PIL) No.203 of 2017

¶24

IBL

¶25

Dt: 02.08.2019

A Aravind Reddy v. Prl.Secretary ( Endowment-I) and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A Aravind Reddy v. Prl.Secretary ( Endowment-I) and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mudunuri Savithri Vs The Asst. Commissioner (Endowments)

V Suresh Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Raptad Rahul Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Shaik Peer Ahmed, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Kolli Manikanta, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

Dr. Chegudi Ashok Babu alias Joshua Daniel, Vs Karunakar Sugguna