Disposed

Narasimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC23 Apr 2025WP/12094/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble Justice T. Vinod Kumar directed the Chief Information Commissioner of Telangana to decide the petitioner's pending appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 within eight weeks after the vacancy is filled. The writ petition was disposed of on admission stage.

What did the court decide?

Directed the 2nd respondent to decide Case No. B04 of 2025 filed by petitioner under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act within eight weeks from the date of appointment of the accused authority.

Narasimha Reddy Vs The State of Telangana — RTI and Transparency | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³¹⁶⁶¹

¶2

HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TEI-ANGANA AT HYDERABAD} (SPeciat Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

WEDNESDAY,^{THE TWENW THIRD DAY.OF APRIL} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY FIVE}

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE T.VINODKUMAR}

¶6

WRIT PETITION^{NO:12094oF 2025}

¶7

Between:"="'kmlUi5#31i,r"ffi

¶8

;"'.",Ii:ft:ff^{5.1';335?3,f&o*Asricurture'DV,rase}

¶9

AND

¶10

rhe State^{of relansana,rePal;Jlirt:?frXosecretau' General Administrative} DePartment,^Secreta

¶11

'3[".f,:81,'J:ft^{yflrf "sH::i"j]:'',lil,"Hfil'?"'i^'3i:,"Jfl''"ffi?l€i} HYderabad-S00^001'

¶12

The District^{Collector, Nagarkumool District'}

¶13

The First^{AppellateAuthority'(U/RTIAct' 2005)' RDO Nagarkumool Division'} Nagarkurnool^District'

¶14

'I[83:"Ji..,?',,'#J#,sfl^{+5p,ilff ",l"li5:''iA1a',H3]'Xls'Jehsirdar/Joint}

¶15

...RESPONDENTS

¶16

Petition^{under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed therewith'the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue^{a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of} writ of Mandamus,^{decraringthe action of the Respondents No 4 and 5 hereinin} not^{providing sought information' relevant information in regard to RTI petition} U/S 6(1)^{filed by petitioner before RespondentNo 5 dated25-06-2024'the RTI} First Appeal^{U/S 19 (1) filed by petitioner before the Respondent No 4 dated} og-og-2o24,^{as illegal, arbitrary, against to the provisionsof RTI Act, 2005'} against to^{the rightsguaranteedby the Constitutionof lndia and against to} principles of^{naturaljusticeas illegal' arbitrary' against to the provisionsof RTI} Act, 2005,^{against to the rights guaranteedby the Constitutionof lndia and}

¶17

against to princiore:r; of naturar justice and vioration of Articre 1.r, 1g and 21 0f Constitution of ln di,r

¶18

IANO:1 OF 2025

¶19

Petition rr'd.r Section 151 cpc praying that in tht: circunrstances stated in the affidavit fil,?d in support of the petition, the High C.urt ma,,,be pleased to direct the Responcer.ts 4 & 5 to take necessary action in the matter and to furnish full informaticn to the aggrieved petitioner.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner: SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI

¶21

COUNSE] fOr thE RCS PONdENt NO.l: GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTFRATION

¶22

Counsel forthe Respondent No.2,4 & 5: Gp FOR RTI & tT

¶23

Counsel forthe Respondent No.3: Gp FOR REVENUE

¶24

The Court made the following: ORDER

¶25

¶26

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR

¶27

Writ Petition No.12094 of 2025

¶28

ORDER

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the^petitioner, learned Government Pleader for General Administration Department appearing for respondent No.l, learned Government Pleader for Right to Information^(Rn) ard Information and Technology^(IT) appearing for respondent^Nos.2,4 and 5, and learned Government Pleader^for Revenue appearing^{for respondent} No.3 and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing^{for the} parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the admission stage.

¶30

The petitioner contends that though he has made an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005^(for shott,^{'the Act'),} dt.25.06.2024 seeking certain information in relation to mutation of^land which is subject matter of a civil sui[ that the said information^{sought for} by the petitioner has not been^provided to the^petitioner; and^that aggrieved by such inaction on the^pat of the^{5th respondent, the} petitioner has filed an appeal before the 4th respondent under Section 19(1) of the Act on 09.09.2024.

¶31

Petitioner Further contends that in spite of the^petitioner availing the remedy under Section 19(1) of the Act,^{though the authoritiesare} mandated to provide such information within 30 days^{in terms of Section}

¶32

¶33

19(6) 6r ther Act, the said information has not bee,n fr rnished to the petition€ r

¶34

pertiti.ner Further contends that since b()th autlorities under Sectiors 5 ilrtrJ 19(1) of the Act did not provide information vithin the time mandaterl rtrrder the Act, the petitioner filed furthr:r appe;,r,, in terms of Section 19(l) of the Act, vide Case No.g04 of 202.5 c1t.2901.2025, and due to thr: !;cancy in the office of the 2nd responde'rt - chi.F InFormation Commissionr:r; the said appeal also remains unconsidere,J till date.

¶35

5, Thus, :he petitioner seeks a direction to the 2nd r,rspondent to decide the a'tceal, idecase Nc.B04 of 202s dt.2g)1)ri25 in terms of section 19( 3) ()f the Act, filed by the petitioner, in a tirne 5ourrd manner.

¶36

Le,lrlej Government pleader appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent sr brnits that the State has already taken jteps Fo_ appointing the Chief nf3p6311on Commissioner and since, th,tt t.he rrocess for appointmenr: i,ers already been initiated and on the vacancy in the said office being fill:J up, the appeal of the petitioner woukj be disp,15g6 .L

¶37

I have tirllr:n note of the respective contentions ,..]rged.

¶38

B. Havinc; r:gard to the submissions made as aborz:, and t lking note of the subrnisslcn made by the learned Government F,leader ,or IT and RTI that step,; have been initiated to fill up vacancy in rre office cf the 2nd

¶39

¶40

respordent, this Court is of the^view that^{on the aforesaid vacancybeing} filled up, the said authority^is to^{be directedto dispose of the appeal} stated to have been filed by^{the petitioner in terms of Section 19(3) of the} Ad., vide Case No.B04 of^{7025 d1.29.0t.7025, within a periodof eight}

¶41

weeks therefrom.

¶42

9 Subject to above direction,^{the Writ Petition is disposedof. No} order as to costs.

¶43

Miscellaneous^petitions, if^{any, pendingin this writ petition shall}

¶44

stand closed.

¶45

SD/.N.RAJGOPAL E UTY^REGISTRAR

¶46

//TRUE^COPY//

¶47

ECTION^OFFICER

¶48

To, 1 The Princioal Secretary,^{General Administrative Department'Secretariet} ' guilaing, Hyderabad, State of Telangana'

¶49

2 The commission, Chief^{lnformation D.No5-a-3s9lt'jrniiitdi"'nakku Commissioner'- Telangana eha"' State Mojamjahi lnformationMarket'} HYderabad-S00^001.

¶50

The^{District Collector, Nagarkurnool District'}

¶51

The First^{Appellate Authority, (U/RTIAct' 2005)' RDO Nagarkurnool Division'} Nagarkumool^District'

¶52

The State^{Public lnformation Officer'(U/RT1,Act',2005)The Tahsildar/Joint} " afi iift ;"iiilffi *., lliilpiiiv rviahdal'^{Nagarkumool District'}

¶53

One^{CC to SRI RAMA KRISHNA KULKARNI' Advocate [OPUCI}

¶54

Two CCs to^{GP FOR GENERALADMINISTRATION' High Court for the State} ' iiTei"ngina at HYderabad [oUTl

¶55

Two CCs^{to GP FOR REVENUE' High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTI

¶56

Two CCs^{to GP FOR RTI & lT' High Court for the State of Telanganaat} Hyderabad [OUTj

¶57

wo CD CoPies BS 10 T s LS

HIGH COURT

DATED:23104t2025

ORDER

WP.No.12094.of 2O2S

1r.l : ,,( :...
'./,i.' .
2 fl Jl,N lt[5
.1tt
\ ,- (..l: :o

¶63

DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WTHOUT COSTS

¶64

2\ D

Narasimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasimha Reddy v. The State of Telangana

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

Zubeda Tarannum Vs The State of Telangana

V. Sambasiva Rao Vs The State of Telangana

Malkhed Jagadesh and another Vs The State of Telangana and 5 Others

Sri Vidya Vs State of Telangana

Vaddalapu Radamma Vs The State of Telangana

J. Sharath Kumar Vs The State of Telanagana