Allowed

C. Suryanarayana v. State of Telangana and another

Telangana HC5 Jan 2023WP/350/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Telangana issued a writ of mandamus directing the Telangana State Information Commission to dispose of a second appeal under the RTI Act within one month, considering the petitioner's advanced age and health condition.

What did the court decide?

The Telangana State Information Commission was directed to dispose of the Second Appeal within one month of receiving a copy of this order.

C. Suryanarayana Vs State of Telangana and another — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

[^321e 1

¶2

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MAOHAVI DEVI

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO: 350 OF 2023

¶7

Between:

¶8

C. Suryanarayana, Son of Late C.Ramulu, Aged about 82 years, Resident of H.No.59/'1 1, LIGH, lV Phase, KPHB Colony, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

State of Telangana, Represented by its Principal Secretary, lnformation and Public Relation Department, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

¶12

Telangana State lnformation Commission, Represented by its Commissioner and Second Appellate Authority, Samachara Hakku Bhavan, tV.J.Market, M.J.Road, Hyderabad.

¶13

...RESPONDENTS

¶14

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ, order or direction, more.particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of CIC Appeal No.6526l2022lClC.BM dated 13/05/2022filed under Section 19(3) of RTI Act by fixing an early date within one month taking into account the age of the petitioner who is presently 82 years and also health condition.

¶15

|.A.NO:1 OF 2023

¶16

¶17

Petition Under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to dispose of CIC Appeal No.6526/2022lClC.BM dated 1310512022 by fixing an early date and within one month,^pending disposal of the writ petition.

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI.P.RAVI SHANKER

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION / GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

¶20

The Gourt made the following ORDER

¶21

¶22

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI

¶23

\VRIT PETIT'ION No.35O of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This Writ Petition has been hled seeking a Writ ol Mandamus, to direct the 2nd respondent to dispose of CIC Appeal No.652ftl2022 lClC.BM, dated 13.O5.2022, filed under Section 19(3) ol the Right to Information Act, 2005, by fixing a time frarne, by taking into account the age of the petitioner who is presently 82 years old and to pass such other order or orders

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner subrnitted that the petitioner has made an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to lr-rformation Act, 2005, dated 05.03.2022, before the Public Inlormation Officer, ACB, Banjara Hills and the sarne was rejected vide orders dated 24.03.2022, stating that the concerned file was destroyed way back in the year 1985.

¶27

It is further srLbmitted that, thereafter, the petitioner has fiIed an appeal under Section I9(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, on O9.O4.2O22, before the First Appellate Authority and the same

¶28

¶29

¶30

PMD,j W.P.No.350 of 2023

¶31

was also rejected vide orders dated 10.05.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner has preferred Second Appeal before the 2"a respondent under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, dated 73.05.2022, and the grievance of the petitioner is that the said appeal has not been considered by the 2.d respondent till date even though the prescribed time limit for disposal of an appeai is one month. He submitted that the petitioner is 83 years of age and he is suffering from severe health conditions ar-rd not passing of al order in his appeal is causing severe hardship to the petitioner.

¶32

Learned Government Pleader for General AdministraLion is a-lso heard.

¶33

Having regard to the fact that prescribed time limit for disposal of an appeal under Section i9(3) of the Right to Information^Act, 2005, is one month, this Court deems it ht and proper to direct^the 2"d respondent to dispose of the appea-l of the petitioner within^one (01) month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

¶34

Accordingly, the Writ^petition is^disposed of. There^{sha1l be no} order as to costs.

¶35

PMD,J W.P.No.350 of 2023

¶36

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shal1 also stand

¶37

closed.

¶38

sD/- T. SR|T.IVAS DEPUTY REGISTRAR / //TRUECOPY/I tj I SECTION UTTICER

¶39

To 'l . The Principal Secretary, lnformation and Public Relation Department, Secretanat Buildings, State of Telangana at Hyderabad. 2. The Telangana State lnformation Commission, Represented by its Commissioner and Second Appellate Authority, Samachara Hakku Bhavan, M.J,tvlarket, It4 J Road, Hyderabad. 3 Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. One CC to SRI.P.RAVI SHANKER, Advocate [OPUC] 5. Two CD Copies 6. One spare copy S.A GJPu!

HIGH COURT

DATED:0510112023

ORDER

/t
({
0g JAl{ 2[8

WP.No.350 of 2A23

DISPOSING OF THE W.P

WITHOUT COSTS.

C. Suryanarayana v. State of Telangana and another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C. Suryanarayana v. State of Telangana and another

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

Hyderabad Mint Employees Union, Vs The General Manager, India Govt. Mint

Santapuram Madava Reddy Vs The State of Telangana

M/s. Aliens Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Telangana

Shaik Rafi Ahmed and 2 Others Vs The State of Telangana and 6 Others

The Indian Flume Pipe Co. Ltd. Vs The State of Telangana

C. Suryanarayana Vs State of Telangana