Dismissed¶28

G.Bhaskara Venkata Rao, v. The State of Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh HC26 Jan 2026WP/1206/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI; Right to Information Act; writ petition dismissed; vague application Ex.P9 dated 15.05.2025; Greater Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation; Zone-7 Anakapalle; Public Information Officer; Zonal Commissioner / First Appellate Officer; State of Andhra Pradesh Municipal Administration and Urban Development Department; no costs; pending applications dismissed; permission to withdraw; Justice Ninala Jayasurya; High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati; W.P. No. 1206 of 2026; decision date 27.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed without costs ('No costs'); dismissal does not preclude the petitioner from making a fresh appropriate application before the concerned authority under the Right to Information Act; consequently, all pending applications stand dismissed. ¶28

G.Bhaskara Venkata Rao, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh — Andhra Pradesh HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶28

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking information under the Right to Information Act, founded on the petitioner's application dated 15.05.2025 (Ex.P9), merited consideration or ought to be dismissed.

¶26

Court's answer

The petitioner's application dated 15.05.2025 (Ex.P9) is vague and lacking in material particulars, and the petitioner, randomly seeking information, cannot expect any information on the basis of such an application.

¶26

Key takeaways

Dismissal of the writ petition does not preclude the petitioner from making an appropriate application before the concerned authority under the Right to Information Act, and any such application is to be acted upon by the concerned authority strictly in accordance with the provisions of that Act.obiter¶28

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Andhra Pradesh High Court at Amaravati (Special Original Jurisdiction), Single Bench (Hon'ble Sri Justice Ninala Jayasurya) - W.P. No. 1206 of 2026, decided 27.01.2026: Writ petition concerning information sought under the Right to Information Act on the strength of the petitioner's application dated 15.05.2025 (Ex.P9). The Court found the application vague and lacking in material particulars, observing that the petitioner, randomly seeking information, cannot expect any information on the basis of such an application. On learned counsel's request, the writ petition was dismissed without costs, with the observation that the dismissal would not preclude the petitioner from making an appropriate application before the concerned authority under the Right to Information Act, to be dealt with strictly in accordance with the provisions of that Act; consequently, all pending applications stood dismissed.

APHC010715592025

[3209]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF JANUARY TW O THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION No: 1206 of 2026

¶8

Between:

¶9

G.BHASKARA VE N KATA RAO, S/o. LATE APPANNA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, O CC-ADVOCATE, R/o.DOO R No.8-6-16, BHEEMUNIGUMM A M (RAILWAY STATION ROAD), A NAKAPALLE531001, ANAKAP A LLE DISTRICT.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REPRESE N TED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SEC R ETARY, MUNICIPAL ADMINIS T RATION AND URBAN DEVELO P MENT DEPARTMENT, SECRETA R IAT OF A.P., VELAGAPUDI, AM A RAVATHI GUNTUR DISTRICT.522 2 37

¶13

GREATER VIS A KHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL C O RPORATION, REPRESENTED B Y THE COMMISSIONER TENNATI BHAVAN, ASILMETTA JUN C TION, VISAKHAPATNAM, VIS A KHAPATNAM DISTRICT.530003

¶14

THE ZONAL C O MMISSIONER7 FIRST APPELLA T E OFFICER, UNDER RTI ACT, Z ONE-7, ANAKAPALLE, ANAKAPAL L E DISTRICT.

¶15

THE PUBLIC INF O RMATION OFFICER/ SUPERINT E NDENT, O/O GREATER VISAK H APATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORA T ION, ZONE-7, ANAKAPALLE, AN A KAPALLE DISTRICT.531001

¶16

...RESPONDENT(S):

¶17

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner:

¶19

1.Smt.T.V. SRI DEVI

¶20

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

¶21

1.GREATER VISAKHAPATNAM MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

¶22

2.GP MUNCIPAL ADMN. AND URBAN DEVLOPMENT

¶23

¶24

The Court made the following Order :

¶25

Heard Mr.C.Upendra, learned counsel representing the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶26

Perused the material on record including the application dated 15.05.2025 (Ex.P9) which is vague and lacking in material particulars. The petitioner is randomly seeking the information and he cannot expect any information on the basis of such application.

¶27

Pointing out this aspect, the Court is about to dismiss the writ petition with costs, but the learned counsel sought permission to withdraw the same with liberty to approach the concerned authorities to secure the relevant information.

¶28

In view of the same, the writ petition is dismissed. Needless to observe that the dismissal of the writ petition would not preclude the petitioner to make appropriate application before the concerned authority under the Right to Information Act and if the petitioner adopt such course of action, it is to the concerned authority to take necessary action on the same, strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act. No costs. Consequently, all pending applications shall stand dismissed.

¶29

JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶30

BLV Dt. 27.01.2026.

¶31

¶32

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA

¶33

W.P.No.1206 of 2026

¶34

Date: 27.01.2026

¶35