HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

ORDER

This Writ Petition is filed to issue a writ of Mandamus

declaring the inaction of respondents in providing the information sought for by the petitioner under application dated 10.07.2014 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Sections 6, 7, 8, 18 and 19 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity ‘the RTI Act, 2005’)

and for consequential direction to the respondents.

2. Heard Sri B.Venkateswara Rao, learned counsel representing Sri M.R.K.Chakravarthy, learned counsel-on-record for the petitioner and Sri G.Madhusudhan Reddy, learned Standing

Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner made an application on 10.07.2014 before the Deputy Commissioner, GHMC, Kukatpally, Hyderabad, under Section 6 of the RTI Act, 2005, seeking certified copies of plans, revised plans sanctioned by GHMC in respect of Lodha Balleza, Lodha Meridian and Lodha Majesto Apartments, being constructed in Sy.No.1009 (Petitioner) of Kukatpally Village, Hyderabad by M/s Lodha

Healthy Constructions and Developers Private Limited and also information about the deviations made by the said Developer in contravention of the sanctioned plans and also other particulars and paid a sum of Rs.100/- as fee for providing the information sought for by him. Learned counsel further submitted that the Deputy Commissioner forwarded the said application to respondent No.3 vide letter dated 11.07.2014, however, respondent No.3 failed to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner within the stipulated period of 30 days, therefore, the petitioner filed appeal before respondent No.2 and as there was no response, he was constrained to file Second Appeal before respondent No.1 and even respondent No.1 failed to consider the same and pass orders, hence, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

3.1. Learned counsel for petitioner further submitted that the RTI Act, 2005 has been enacted to enable citizens of India to secure access to information under the control of the public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in their working and certain time lines have been stipulated in the said Act for providing information sought for by the citizens. He further submitted that in the present case, respondent No.2-first appellate authority as well as respondent No.1-second appellate authority have not provided the information, which is contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, and therefore, prayed to allow the Writ Petition.

4. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, on written instructions, submitted that the information sought for by the petitioner has been furnished vide letter No.R/1624/RTI/TPS/ HO/GHMC/2025/844, dated 07.10.2025 and the same has been sent to the petitioner, to the address which is being mentioned in the writ affidavit, through registered post on 08.10.2025, therefore, the cause in the Writ Petition does not survive for adjudication and accordingly, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for petitioner placed on record the Online Consignment Tracking Report, as per which, the information sent by the respondents-GHMC to the petitioner has been returned back to the sender, i.e., GHMC with endorsement ‘insufficient address’.

6. In view of the aforesaid submission of learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondents again seeking the information required by him and obtain the same, if it is available with the respondents-Corporation. 7. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending, shall stand closed. No costs.

__________________________________

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J Date:11.11.2025 dr