Allowed

Mohammed Ahsan Hussain Khan v. The State of Telanagana

Telangana HC19 Jan 2023WP/38140/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged non-disposal of RTI application as illegal. Court held Tahsildar not competent; Collector should furnish information. Dismissed non-exhaustion plea.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner vide application dated 17.02.2022 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Mohammed Ahsan Hussain Khan Vs The State of Telanagana — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

t<-

¶2

[³²¹⁹ |

¶3

HIGH COURT FORTHE STATE OFTELANGANA AT HI'DERABAD

¶4

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶5

THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY THREE PRESENT

¶6

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE P.MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION NO: 38140 OF 2022

¶7

Betrveen:

¶8

Mohammed Ahsan Hussain Khan, S/o. Late Nawab Mohammed Mohsin Hussain Khan, Occ. Mutawalli, R/o. H. No. ll-2-55814/1 to 4, Flat No. 502, 5th Ftoor. Nirmas Castle, Aghapura, Hyderabad. T.S.

¶9

...PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

The State of Telanagan4 Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue. Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶12

The Collector, Hyderabad Dist.

¶13

The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal. Hyderabad

¶14

...RF],SPONDIINTS

¶15

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of writ of mandamus to declare the action of the Respondent No.3 in not issuing the information sought by the petitioner in Application under RTI Act2005 dt. 1110212022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of Section 6(l) of RTI Act2005 and Article 300A of Indian Constitution. Consequently, to direct the Respondents to furnish me the information sought in petitioner application dt. 1l-022022U|s.6 (l) R/w. 2 (F) of the Right to Information Act-2005

¶16

IA NO: I OF 2022

¶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 furnish the information sought in petitioner application dt. ll10212422 UA. 6 (1) R/w. 2 (F) of the Right to Information Act-2005 pending disposal of the above writ petition

¶18

Counsel for the Petitioner(s):SRl. MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSSAIN

¶19

Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR REVENUE

¶20

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶21

¶22

I $

¶23

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE P.MADHAVI^DEVI WRIT PETITION No.3814O of 2022

¶24

ORDER:

¶25

This Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus declaring the action of the 3.d respondent in not^{issuing the information sought} for by the petitioner vide application dated 11.02.2022 under Right to Information Act, 20O5 (in short terms "the Act, 2OO5) as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct the respondents to furnish information sought for by the petitioner and to pass such other order or orders.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had filed application before the 3'd respondent for furnishing of information and the sarne was replied to by the $'a respondent stating that the requested copies were not found and if it is found they would be furnished. Subsequently, the petitioner made another representation and in reply vide letter dated March 2022, it was informed that the pahani patrikas which are sought for by the petitioner are superseded by TSLR records and the authority to certifz TSLR is vested with the District Collector. Challenging the action of the 3.d respondent in not issuing the information, the present Writ Petition is frled.

¶27

Learned Government Pleader for Information and Technologz obtained written instructions, according to which, the office of the

¶28

PMD.J w.P.No.38I40 of 2022 2

¶29

Tahsildar, Musheerabad Tahsil is not the competent authority to incorporate the new narnes in TSLR records and therefore letter to this effect has already been furnished to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not exhausted the opportunity to approach the Appellate Authority and therefore, the Writ Petition has to be dismissed.

¶30

Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record and particularly the contention of the respondents that it is the 2"a respondent who is competent to certiff the TSLR records, this Court deems it frt and proper to direct t};,:e 2"d respondent to furnish the information sought for by^'the petitioner vide application dated 17.O2.2O22 under Section 6(1) of the Act, 2OO5 within a^period of three (O3) weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order.

¶31

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

¶32

Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall also^stand

¶33

closed.

¶34

¶35

SD/-P.CH.NAGABHUSHAMBA ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPYII SECTION OFFICER

¶36

To, l. The Principal Secretary, Department ofRevenue. Secretariat, State of Telanagana, Hyderabad.

¶37

1. The Collector, Hyderabad Dist.

¶38

The Tahsildar, Musheerabad Mandal. Hyderabad 4. One CC to SRI. MUHAMMAD VEQAR HUSSAIN Advocate [OpUC] 5. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE (TG) ,High Court for the State of Telangana. lourl

¶39

Two CD Copies

HIGH COURT

PMD,J

DATED:1910t12023

-I HE:JTA I(.
t-
o I
c/l 0 6 tr;{ ?fi}
:;PA:CH'.

¶44

ORDER

¶45

WP.No.38l40 ol'2022

¶46

WP IS DISPOSED OF WITHOUT COSTS

Mohammed Ahsan Hussain Khan v. The State of Telanagana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ahsan Hussain Khan v. The State of Telanagana

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

Abyudaya Vidya Samithi, Vs The Government of Andhra Pradesh

M/s. Healthcare Reforms Doctors Association Vs The State of Telangana

M/s Krishna Stone Crusher Vs Government of Telangana

K. Bhaskar Reddy, Vs The Principal Secretary Irrigation Department

Venkateswara Mphw (F) Training Institute, Vs The State of Telangana

Dr. G. Sudhir Reddy Vs The State of Telangana