IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Surepalli Nanda, J.
Sunil G.Manghnani - Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana - Respondent
W.P. No. 16107 of 2018
Decided On : 05-06-2023
Mandamus - Right to Information - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sec. 19(6) - Sec. 8(1)(a)(e)(h) - Evacuee Property - Allotment order No. Hyd-59, dtd. 7/3/1969 and sanadNo.RSC(b)/LAND /HYD-59, dtd. 25/11/1970 - SEP3/212/1982 - Summary: The court directed respondents to furnish information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 pertaining to Evacuee property allotted in favor of late Smt. Radhibai Manghanani within four weeks.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought information regarding evacuee property allotted to late Smt. Radhibai Manghanani under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondents failed to provide the information, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents failed to provide the information sought by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and directed them to furnish the information within four weeks.
Issues: Failure of the respondents to provide the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 should be provided unless it falls under the exempted categories specified in Sec. 8(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the respondents were directed to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within four weeks.
Certainly. Based on the provided judgment, here are similar judgments related to the Right to Information Act, 2005, and issues concerning the disclosure of information, especially in cases involving evacuee properties or government records:
Judgments emphasizing that information requested under the RTI Act should generally be provided unless it falls under specific exemptions outlined in Sec. 8(1). These cases often involve the balance between transparency and confidentiality.
Cases where courts have directed authorities to furnish information regarding land allotments, property records, or government files, highlighting the obligation of public authorities to disclose information unless explicitly exempted.
Decisions that reinforce the principle that the right to information is a fundamental right and that the exemptions listed in Sec. 8(1) should be narrowly construed, with the burden on the authority to justify withholding information.
Judgments that deal with the procedural aspects of RTI applications, appeals, and the timelines for disposal under Sec. 19(6), emphasizing the importance of timely responses and the obligation of authorities to maintain and produce records.
Cases where courts have examined the legality of withholding information related to property allotments, land records, or government files, and have ordered disclosure in the absence of valid exemptions.
Please note that these are general categories of judgments consistent with the principles and issues addressed in the provided document. If you need specific case law or more detailed references, I can assist further.
JUDGMENT
SUREPALLI NANDA,J. - Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, learned Government Pleader for General Administration and Learned Advocate General appearing for Respondents.
2. This Writ Petition is filed praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing Respondent no.2 and 3 to furnish information pertaining to information of Evacuee Property allotted in favor of late Smt. RadhibaiManghanani in respect of land admeasuring Ac.11.23 guntas in Survey Nos. 181, 212, 234, 292, 488 and 489 of Machirevula Village of Rajendranagar Mandal in Rangareddy District through allotment order No. Hyd-59, dtd. 7/3/1969 and sanadNo.RSC(b)/LAND /HYD-59, dtd. 25/11/1970 in favour of Smt. Radhibhai and request to furnish all the papers in current file and note file of the above said allotment order No.HYD-59 dtd. 7/3/1969 in the file No.SEP3/212/1982 issued by Settlement Commissioner, Bombay and direct the respondent No.2 & 3 to furnish basic property register (BPR), SEP3 P.Rs. (personal register) for the year 1982 and record register for the years 1982, 1983, 2017, 2022 and 2023 under Right To Information Act, 2005.
3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is as follows:
a) Petitioner on 27/4/2017 had made an application by paying requisite fee, to respondent no. 4 under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting to furnish information regarding the evacuee property allotted in favour of late Smt. Radhibai Manghnani in respect of land admeasuring Ac.11.23 guntas in Survey Nos. 181, 212, 234, 292, 488 and 489 of Machirevula Village of Rajendranagar Mandal in Rangareddy District through allotment order No. Hyd-59, dtd. 7/3/1969 and sanadNo.RSC(b)/LAND /HYD59, dtd. 25/11/1970 and to furnish all papers issued by the Settlement Commissioner, Bombay.
b) In response to the application of the petitioner, respondent no.4 addressed a letter vide CCLA U.O. Note RTI/475/2017, dtd. 29/4/2017 to the Assistant Secretary (Settlements), office of respondent no.2 to furnish information as sought in the petitioner's application.
c) The Assistant Secretary (Settlements), O/o respondent no. 2 vide letter U.O.NoteSettleII/250/2017 dtd. 26/5/2017 stated that the personal registers are maintained in chronological order and that personal register of 1982 of SEP3 is not available and that the record Sec. was once again requested to trace the personal record and that soon after the same would be supplied to the petitioner.
d) Aggrieved by the orders, petitioner preferred an Appeal dtd. 1/6/2017 before Appellate Authority i.e., 3rd respondent, under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the 3rd respondent till date had not disposed off the petitioner's appeal.
e) Moreover, under Sec. 19 (6) of Right to Information Act, 2005, respondent no.3 is bound to dispose of the appeal within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the same. Even though, the petitioner's appeal was on1/6/2017, which had been received by the respondent no.3 office on 5/6/2017, no orders have been passed by the 3rd respondent till as on date.
f) Delay in furnishing the requisite information to the petitioner, not only amounts to the contravening the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 but is also causing hardships to the petitioner. Hence the Writ Petition.
4. The case of the respondents, in brief, is as follows:
a) Against the appeal preferred by the petitioner, the then Public Information Officer (PIO)issued Note vide No.RTI/475/17 dtd. 21/6/2017 to the Assistant Secretary (Settlement) and Deemed Public Information Officer informing Personal Registers of SEP3 Seat only has been traced by the Record Sec. and had been forwarded to the Settlement Sec. along with the copy of the petitioner's 1st appeal and requesting to furnish the information to the petitioner and the same had been informed to the petitioner.
b) In response, the Assistant Secretary (Settlement) & Deemed Public Information Officer vide U.O.NoteSett.II/110/19 dtd. 30/3/2019 informed that as
The court emphasized that information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 should be provided unless it falls under the exempted categories specified in Sec. 8(1) of the Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.