SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 58020

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE T.VINOD KUMAR
Sri Yash Jain – Appellant
Versus
State of Telangana – Respondent
WP 9632/2025



THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR W.P.No. 9632 of 2025

O R D E R

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Information Technology & RTI appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 & 4, Sri K.Siddharth Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.2, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, the writ petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at admission stage.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he had submitted an application on 04.12.2024 to the 3rd respondent under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) seeking information, since the information sought for by him has not been furnished, he has availed the approaching the 4th respondent; and that in spite of the time information has been furnished. Hence, this Writ Petition.

3. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Information Technology & RTI appearing on behalf of the respective respondents submits that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the non- furnishing of information or the information furnished is not sufficient, the petitioner has remedies under the Act, firstly, by filing an appeal to the 1st Appellate Authority, and secondly, by filing second appeal to the Commissioner as prescribed under Section 19(3) of the Act.

4. Learned Government Pleader further submits that since, the petitioner claims to have availed the remedy of first appeal on 23.01.2025 and 30 days period mandated under Section 19(6) of the Act having expired, the petitioner has to avail the further remedy of second appeal as provided under Section 19(3) of the Act.

5. I have taken note of the respective submissions made.

6. Though the petitioner claims to have filed appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, as it is not shown to this Court of the information, this Court is of the view that the petitioner should be

7. Granting liberty as noted hereinabove, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.

8. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.

_____________________ T. VINOD KUMAR, J

01st April, 2025 gra

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top