The petitioner, being an accused in a criminal case, does not have an inherent right to seek information under the Right to Information Act and should follow the appropriate procedure under the Rules of Practice to secure copies of documents.

JUDGMENT

D.V.S.S. Somayajulu, J. - This writ petition is filed by petitioner as party in person seeking a Mandamus to the respondents namely, the Public Information Officer-cum-Administrative Officer, District Judge Court, Rajahmundry, the appellate authority-cum-Registrar, General, High court of Andhra Pradesh for information under the Right to Information Act pertaining to case C.C.No.133 of 2010 on the file of the II Judicial First Class Magistrate, Rajahmundry.

2. This Court has heard the party in person and the learned counsel representing the High Court.

3. The prayer in the writ petition is for a direction/Mandamus to the Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act represented by the Registrar General, High Court of A.P., for supply of the following information:

'1. I am hereby requesting you to provide me the status of my perjury application Sr.No.7690/27-12-2010 in Crl.M.P.No. /2010 in Main C.C.133/2010 in Hon. II JFMC Rajahmundry and also provide me certified copiesof my application/petition and material evidence and all return reasons and all re-submissions, including any proceeding from 27-12-2010 to 17-06-2011 inclusive of both the dates.

1. I was deprived of natural justice when I and my parents got issued NBW without issuance of summons in C.C.No.133/2020 Hon II JFMC, Rajahmundry and hence, I am hereby seeking the docket order on 16-Aug-2010 and docket order on 02-Nov-2010 along with any publication or any proceeding, including note file if any, between he said dates inclusive of both the dates to appeal for revision.

2. Kindly provide me 2 sets of the certified copies of:-complaint, complete docket order, FIR, Charge sheet, all 161 statements, and all the list of documents submitted in C.C.No.133/2010 in Hon II JFMC, RJY, including complete proceedings from the date of complaint till date including note files if any.'

4. The party-in-person argued the matter at length and stated that he was deprived of the information and raised a number of other issues in the course of his argument.

5. The Chief Administrative Officer, East Godavari District representing the Principal District Court has filed a counter affidavit. From the counter, it is apparent that the petitioner has only filed two valid applications dated 21.02.2014 and the other two applications upon which he agitated upon are photo copies of the earlier application. It is also stated that the appellate authority dismissed the petitioner's appeal for request for information holding that the petitioner has to approach the appropriate Court to secure the data. As far as the inspection of document is concerned, it is also stated that the petitioner has appeared in person and has also verified the data. As per the learned counsel, a reading of the rejoinder would also reveal that the petitioner is aware of a majority of docket orders that were passed. Lastly, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the petitioner is a party to the said C.C.No.133 of 2010 and as per the Rules, he is entitled to secure all the copies that he desires by making an appropriate copy application and that the Right to Information Act is not a proper Act for seeking the data or information.

6. COURT: This Court after hearing the submissions on both sides notices that it is a fact that the petitioner himself is an accused in the criminal case C.C.No.133 of 2010. Therefore, he can secure all the data that he requires including the copies of the documents by making an appropriate application under the Rules of Practice.

7. As per the law on the subject, which is clearly pronounced in Chief Information Commissioner v. High Court of Gujarat and another (2020) 4 SCC 702, a party to a proceeding in a Court or a third party to the proceeding can obtain the information and copies of all the documents by making an appropriate application to the Court under the Rules governing the subject for securing the copies of the docket orders etc. The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly held in t