This common order dismisses two writ petitions filed against alleged inaction in furnishing information under the Right to Information Act. The court held the remedy of appeal under Section 19 is more efficacious.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition Nos.3576 and 3598 of 2013 Date: 07.02.2013
Common Order:
These Writ Petitions are filed feeling aggrieved by the alleged inaction of the respondent in furnishing the required information to the petitioner.
At the hearing, it is not disputed by Mr. Shaik Jilani, learned Counsel for the petitioners, that under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, his clients have the remedy of appeal, if the required information is not furnished and also a Second Appeal against the inaction of the first appellate authority or an order passed by it. The petitioners have not explained the reasons for not availing these statutory remedies, which, in my opinion, are efficacious.
Therefore, the Writ Petitions are dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to avail the alternative remedies as referred to above.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petitions, the interlocutory applications pending, if any, stand disposed of as infructuous.
_______________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J
Dt: 07-02-2013 SKA/LUR
Applicant
Public Servant
C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
