Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Alla Ram Prathap - Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana and others – Respondents
W.P. No. 39549 of 2022
Decided On : 10-03-2023
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8(1)(h) - Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 19(2) - Land - Partitioned among family - Possessors of land - Petition is filed to issue a Writ, Order or direction declaring order passed by 2nd respondent in rejecting request of petitioner to furnish copy of vigilance report though report was submitted after completing investigation and investigation was not in process, as illegal - Held, Court opines that it is bounden duty of 2nd respondent to indicate cogent reasons to show that in what manner disclosure of information sought for could impede investigation - Court opines that denial of any information available to 2nd Respondent, may in fact impede course of justice - Exclusion under Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005 has to be read in conjunction with Article 19(2) of Constitution of India and such denial must be reasonable and in interest of public order - Court opines that order impugned of 2nd Respondent vide letter does not even indicate as to how Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act is attracted and how Respondents are justified in not giving information to Petitioner - Petitions closed.
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The petitioner, Alla Ram Prathap, filed a writ petition challenging the refusal of the second respondent to furnish copies of vigilance reports under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The reports were submitted after investigation was completed, and the investigation was not ongoing at the time of the request (!) (!) .
The petitioner’s case is that the land in question was owned and possessed by the petitioner’s mother and subsequently inherited by the petitioner’s family, with proper revenue records and ownership documents supporting this claim (!) (!) .
The land was allegedly subjected to unauthorized mutation in favor of land grabbers without notice or proper verification, prompting the petitioner to file a complaint and seek investigation and action against the responsible officers (!) (!) .
The Vigilance and Enforcement Department conducted an investigation and submitted reports, which the petitioner requested copies of under the RTI Act. The second respondent rejected the request, citing Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, claiming the reports were preliminary and not final (!) (!) .
The respondents contended that the reports are preliminary in nature and that furnishing them could impede ongoing or future investigations or actions, thus justifying withholding under Section 8(1)(h) (!) (!) .
The petitioner argued that the investigation reports are conclusive once submitted and cannot be considered merely preliminary, and that withholding such information violates the principles of natural justice and the RTI Act (!) (!) .
The court observed that the order rejecting the RTI application failed to provide cogent reasons or specific circumstances demonstrating how disclosure would impede investigations or prosecutions, and that the denial was unreasonable (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the exclusion under Section 8(1)(h) must be read in conjunction with constitutional provisions and that any denial of information should be reasonable and in the interest of public order (!) .
The court relied on the legal principle that once an investigation is complete and reports are submitted, they are generally conclusive, and withholding them must be justified with specific reasons showing how disclosure would impede the process (!) .
The court remanded the matter back to the second respondent for a fresh consideration, requiring them to provide a reasoned order after re-evaluating the RTI request in accordance with law, within three weeks (!) .
The court found that the respondents’ reliance on the reports being preliminary was not adequately supported and that the order was therefore unsustainable. The petition was allowed, and the original order was set aside (!) .
There was no order as to costs, and any pending miscellaneous petitions were closed (!) .
Please let me know if you need further analysis or specific legal advice regarding this case.
ORDER :
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for General Administration.
2. This Writ Petition is filed to issue a Writ, Order or direction, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide letter No.1425/V&E/D1/RTI/2022, dated 12.10.2022 in rejecting the request of the petitioner to furnish the copy of the vigilance report No.86 (1764/V&E/D1/2020) and 863/V&E/D1/2022, dated 19.07.2022 by invoking Section 8(1)(h) of RTI Act, 2005, though the report was submitted after completing the investigation and the investigation was not in process, as illegal, arbitrary, abuse of process of law and is a clear case of violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to rules and the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and set aside the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide letter No.1425/V&E/D1/RTI/2022, dated 12.10.2022 by further directing the 2nd respondent to furnish copy of the vigilance report No.86 (1764/V&E/D1/2020) and 863/V&E/D1/2022, dated 19.07.2022 submitted by the 3rd respondent to the Government.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) The mother of the petitioner AllaSatyamma was absolute owner, pattedar and possessor of the land to an extent of Ac.0.17 gts in Survey No.631/AA and to an extent of Ac.0.16 gts in Survey No.631/E, situated at Mother Village Sivar, Jagtial Mandal and District, within the limits of Jagtial Municipality. These lands are inherited by the petitioner’s mother through her mother-in-law SmtAllaDvamma by way of registered Will Deed. After demise of AllaDevamma on 19.08.1999, the mother of the petitioner became absolute owner of the above said lands and all the revenue records including 1-B proceedings clearly shows about the onwership and possession of the lands. The mother of the petitioner died on 14.12.2018. After the death of AllaSatyamma, the petitioner, petitioner’s father and petitioner’s siblings have become the absolute owners and possessors of the land.
b) Vide registration deed no. 660 dated 31.01.2019 the land has been partitioned among the family of the petitioners. Taking advantage of the fact that, the petitioner and the petitioner’s family members live outside Jagital town, land grabbers had hatched a plan to grab the land belonging to the petitioner and petitioner’s family members by making a false application for mutation.
c) The revenue department without giving petitioner’s any notice or an opportunity, mutated the land situated in 631/E in favour of the land grabbers even though the mutation application submitted was for land situated in 631/A. The Municipal, Gram Panchayat and Revenue Authorities without verifying the ownership and title of the parties supported the land grabbers.
d) Petitioner submitted a compliant to the 3rd respondent on 22.10.2020 narrating all the above mentioned documents and requested to take necessary action against the persons responsible. Based on the complaint of the petitioner, Regional Vigilence and Enforcement authorities have conducted the investigation and have submitted the report to the 3rd respondent. Even though 2 years have elapsed from the date of the filing of the complaint by the petitioner, no action had been taken by the 3rd respondent.
e) Vigilance Department along with the enquiry report have forwarded the recommendations to the Principal Secretaries of the concerned department excluding the Municipal and Electrical Departments but no action was initiated against the officers.
f) Petitioner made an representation vide Right to Information Act, 2005 application on 30.09.2022 and 01.10.2022 to the 2nd respondent, requesting to furnish the vigilance report no. 86 (1764/V&E/D1/2020) and 863/V&E/D1/2022 dated 19.07.2022. But the application of the petitioner was rejected by the 2nd respondent under section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 stating that the report submitted was preliminary and not final reports.
g) Once the inv
Public authorities must provide clear reasons to justify the withholding of information under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act based on how it impedes investigations; mere assertions are insufficient.
Disclosure of information that impedes ongoing investigations is exempt under RTI Act, reaffirming the confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings.
Information on ongoing disciplinary proceedings exempt under RTI Section 8(1)(h) if disclosure would impede process, based on authority's subjective apprehension; upheld where enquiry incomplete desp....
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
