THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.30702 OF 2025

ORDER:

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner under Sections 6(1), 19(1) and 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act’) pertaining to the land situated in Sy.Nos.476 subdivided into Sy.Nos.476/A1, 476/B, 476/1/1, 476/1/2 of Mamunoor Revenue Village of Khila, Warangal Mandal and District, as illegal and arbitrary and is consequently seeking a direction to the respondents to provide information requested by him in application dated 17.06.2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Telangana State Information Commission appearing for respondent No. 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the Public Information Officer nor the 1st appellate and 2nd appellate authority have acted upon the application of the petitioner.

4. Learned Government Pleader for RTI appearing for the respondents submitted that the application under Section 6(1) of the Act has not been made to the Public Information Officer, but it has been submitted to the Tahsildar, who is not the competent authority to furnish information.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, which reads as under:-

“Section 6(3) of India's Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, mandates that a public authority must transfer an RTI application to another public authority if the requested information is held by that other authority or relates to its functions. This transfer must occur within five days of receiving the application, and the applicant must be informed of the transfer.”

6. He therefore, submitted that if the authority who has received the application is not the competent authority, he ought to have transferred the application to the Officer having the jurisdiction and ought to have informed about the said transfer to the petitioner. He further submitted that none of the authorities have informed the petitioner that Tahsildar is not the Public Information Officer. According to the petitioner, Tahsildar is the Public Information Officer.

7. Having regard to the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.2 ought to have furnished the information within the prescribed time. Neither the 3^rd respondent nor the 4^th respondent have responded to the applications filed by the petitioner and if respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the petitioner has not made application to the appropriate authority, he ought to have transferred the same to the appropriate authority.

8. In view thereof, respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and to furnish information sought for by him, within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed.

_____________________________ JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 09.10.2025.

dv/pav