(Prayer: Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly in the nature of writ of Certiorari setting aside the successive impugned orders of dismissal of the petitioner's application and successive Appeals under the Right to information Act 2005 dt.23-11-2006 20-01-2007 and 20-11-2007 passed by the 1st, 2nd, 3rd respondents respectively and be consequently pleased to direct the 1st respondent to provide information as solicited by the petitioner vide his application dt.15-11-2006 by soliciting and obtaining the required information from the 4th respondent Judicial Officer.)

1. Being aggrieved by the orders dated 23.11.2006, 20.01.2007 and 20.11.2007 passed by respondent Nos.1 to 3 respectively dismissing the petition and appeals filed by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’), the petitioner has filed this writ petition. In this petition, the petitioner has also prayed for a direction to respondent No.1 to provide the information, asked by him vide his application dated 15.11.2006, from respondent No.4. By virtue of the order dated 23.11.2006, respondent No.1 had rejected the said application and respondent Nos.2 and 3 have confirmed the order of respondent No.1 in the first and second appeals filed by the petitioner.

2. The facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are as under:

Petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of Ac.8-35 gts. of land bearing Survey No.284 of Puppalaguda Village, Rajendernagar Mandal, Ranga Reddy District as a Khouldar (cultivator) thereof. In the year 2002, one Dr.P. Mallikarjuna Rao filed a suit vide O.S.No.854 of 2002 before Additional Junior Civil Judge (West & South), Ranga Reddy District praying for perpetual injunction against the petitioner and another from entering into the above land. An interlocutory application for interim injunction filed alongwith the said suit was dismissed by the Junior Civil Judge on the ground that the petitioner was in possession of the suit property and against the said order, Dr.Mallikarjuna Rao filed C.M.A.No.185 of 2002 and the same was dismissed whereby the order of the Junior Civil Judge was confirmed. It was the case of the petitioner that during the pendency of the above suit, the mother, daughter and son-in-law of Dr.Mallikarjuna Rao had filed three suits viz., O.S.Nos.805, 875 and 877 of 2003 before the 1st Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District and the petitioner herein was defendant in O.S.No.875 of 2003 and in the said suit, the trial Court granted interim injunction, against which the petitioner had preferred C.M.A.No.67 of 2005, which had been dismissed by respondent No.4 on 10.8.2006. The petitioner herein appears to be aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.4 in the said C.M.A but he did not challenge the said order.

3. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not challenge the order dated 10.08.2006 passed by respondent No.4 before any higher Court, and, therefore, the said order has now become final. It may, however, be noted that after hearing of the petition was concluded, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner had submitted that the petitioner had filed an application for review of the order dated 10.8.2006 passed in C.M.A.No.67 of 2005. On 15.11.2006, he had filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act before the Administrative Officer-cum-Assistant State Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005, Ranga Reddy District Courts, L.B. Nagar (respondent No.1) seeking information to the queries made in paragraph 3 thereof. The said application had been rejected by respondent No.1 on 23.11.2006, against which an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Act had been filed before the Registrar General-cum-Appellate Authority under the Right to I