Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Mohd. Viqar Ahmed - Petitioner
Versus
The Public Information Officer, DGP Office and others - Respondents
W.P. No. 8244 of 2023
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(1)(a) - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(f), (i), 20, 6 (3), (1), 3, 22, 8(1) - Disciplinary proceedings - Misconduct in not discharging their legitimate duties - Seeking information - Issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring action of respondents particularly respondent NoS.1 and 2 herein in not implementing orders passed in complaint as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional - Held, Any information as defined Under Section 2(f) r/w 2(i) of RTI Act, needs to be furnished until furnishing of information is barred U/s.8(1) of RTI Act - By reason of Sec.22 of RTI Act, Court opines that provisions of RTI Act, shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law - It only means that even if there is a question of privilege involved RTI Act compels furnishing of information unless and until furnishing of information is barred U/s.8(1) of RTI Act, 2005 - Writ Petition allowed.
ORDER :
Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Government Pleader for Home.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents particularly respondent NoS.1 and 2 herein in not implementing the orders dated 03.09.2022 passed in complaint No.14734/CIC/2021, by the Telangana State Information Commission Hyderabad as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional besides in gross violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 consequently direct the respondent no. 1 and 2 herein to provide/furnish the complete information as sought by the petitioner in his RTI application dated 03.04.2018 by implementing the orders dated 03.09.2022 passed in complaint no.14734/CIC/2021, by the Telangana State Information Commission Hyderabad and penalty may be imposed as per section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3. The case of the Petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a. Petitioner had submitted an RTI application dated 03.04.2018 seeking particular information, to the 1st respondent.
b. The 1st respondent in response to the RTI application of the Petitioner, issued letter dated 07.05.2018 & 21.05.2018 vide Rc.No.145/ME-RTI/2018 furnishing incomplete or irrelevant information and further stating that similar information has been furnished to the petitioner earlier.
c. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the First Appeal dated 15.05.2018 to the 2nd respondent and then the 1st respondent vide Rc.No.208/ME-RTI/Appeal/2018 dated 28.05.2018 had furnished the information.
d. The Petitioner had preferred 2nd appeal to the Respondent Commission on 14.08.2018 and the Respondent Commission vide order dated 03.10.2019, had passed the orders directing the respondent PIO to furnish the information within 1 (one) week from the date of receipt of the order.
e. Even after the receipt of the orders of the commission the respondent had not submitted the information and hence the 4th and 5th respondent are to conduct disciplinary proceedings/departmental proceedings against the 1st and 2nd respondents for their misconduct in not discharging their legitimate duties in accordance to provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
f) When the respondents did not obey the orders of the information of commission even after a lapse of 4 (Four) years, the petitioner then filed an application dated 11.11.2021 to information commission and the same is closed by order dated 03.09.2022 passed in Complaint No. 14734/CIC/2021 directing the PIO to implement the orders passed by information commission on 03.10.2019.
g) Respondents did not furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner which is against the provisions and the objectives of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondents should have implemented the orders passed by the Telangana State Information Commission in Appeal dated 03.09.2022 and 03.10.2019. Hence the Writ Petition.
4. The counter filed by the 1st respondent, in brief, is as follows:
a) The petitioner vide representation dated 23.02.1995 had requested to be appointed as RSI at CAR Headquarters, Hyderabad under Sports Quota and the same had been forwarded to the Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, A.P., and the Government of Andhra Pradesh issued a memo No.27546/Pol.D (A1)/95-1 dated 30.08.1995 to quote similar precedents.
b) The certified copies of Rc.No.747/V3/95 dated 23.06.1995, Government Memo No.No.27546/Pol.D (A1)/95- 1 dated 30.08.1995 and letter No.26956/Ser.III/A1/2010 dated 30.11.2010 are not available as they pertain to period prior to 2nd July of 2014.
c) On petitioner’s application dated 03.04.2018 & 02.06.2018, available information has been furnished to the petitioner vide Rc.No.145/ME-RTI/2018 dated 21.05.2018 & 07.06.2018 and also against the petitioner’s appeal application dated 15.05.2018 & 23.05.2018, available information has been furnished
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power under Sec.20(2) of the RTI Act cannot be mechanically exercised, and the focus should be on whether the necessary information sought....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
