ORDER :

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader.

2. This Writ Petition is filed seeking the relief as follows:

“to issue Writ or direction preferably Writ of Certiorari, calling for the records and set aside Order of the Respondent No.1 dated 05.11.2021 in Complaint No.5527/SIC-SK/2020 for being illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction, contrary to the scheme & the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and also violative of the principles of natural justice & voilative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India”.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:

a) The 2nd respondent made an application to the Public Information Officer, High Court, under RTI Act, 2005 seeking certain information from the High Court on eight points.

b) The 2nd respondent filed complaint before the 1st respondent alleging that he was constrained to approach the 1st respondent as the information sought by him was not provided by the Public Information Officer, High Court for the State of Telangana.

c) Though both the respondents and PIO-Registrar (Judicial-I) were not present, the 1st respondent on its own proceeded to pass impugned order by making certain adverse comments and directed the PIO, High Court to furnish information to the 2nd respondent within two weeks.

d) The 1st respondent failed to appreciate that the nature of the information sought by the 2nd respondent is such that the complaint itself ought not to have been entertained by the 1st respondent. Hence, this writ petition is filed.

PERUSED THE RECORD

4. Para No.9 of the counter affidavit filed by the 1st respondent reads as under:

9. “In reply to Paras 5 to 10, it is submitted that since the information sought by the 2nd respondent is not furnished within 30 days as per the RTI Act, he approached the Commission for redressal of his grievance. The answering Respondent has issued notice to the Public Information Officer to appear before it on 05.11.2021. No affidavit was filed by the Public Information Officer that the information sought is in the domain of administrative side of the Hon’ble High Court and they are sensitive or confidential in nature and cannot be furnished to dispel the onus of proof cast on the State Public Information Officer U/sec.19 (5) of the Act, to enable to dispose off the complaint, citing the reasons for not disposing off the same. In the absence of the aforesaid, as neither the Public Information Officer nor his/her authorized representative have appeared and gave any information or sought adjournment of the matter, on 05.11.2021, the answering Respondent directed the Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought by the 2nd Respondent as per the Act, within two weeks, from the date of receipt of the order. The order dated 05.11.2021 in Complaint No.5524/SIC-SK/2020 is perfectly valid and justifiable. It is pertinent to mention here that the 1st respondent has disposed off many appeals/complaints during his tenure without any blemish or adverse remarks, strictly adhering to the provisions of RTI Act. If the orders dated 05.11.2021 exceeds the jurisdiction of the answering Respondent, a lenient view may be taken and close the proceedings against it”.

5. Section 16 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under:

Appeal- (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub-section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case my be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority”.

6. Section 18 of Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as under:

Powers and functions and Information Commissions – Subject to the provisions