High Court · 2025

Judgment

1. State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary (lnformation and Public Relations) Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 3 4 5 The State of Telangana, Rep., by its Principal Secretary(tVlA and UD) Secretariat, Hyderabad. The Commissioner, GHMC, Tankbund, Hyderabad. ! The Deputy Commissioner (PlO), Kukatpally Zone, GHMC, Kukatpally' Medchal Malakjgiri District. The City Planner, Kukatpally Zone, GHMC, Medchal Malakajgiri District. ...RESPONDENTS

Petition under Article 226 ot the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith' the High Court may be pleased to pass a order or direction one in the nature of writ of fVlandamus by set asiding the Letter No. 2s2lRTltlPSlKZlGHMCl2O23 dated 26-09-2023 issued by the Respondents no. 4 and 5 as it is illegal, arbitrary, against the natural justice as well as against the object of the RTI Act, 2005 and direct the,Respondent no. 4 and 5 to provide the documents under Rights to lnformation Act, 2005 as per the Representation of the petitioner daled 26-06-2023 lA NO: 'l OF 2024 Petition under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased direct the respondent no. 5 to provide the copies of the documents to petitioner which are submitted by the Gottimukkal sridevi wo Mohan Vamshi, Fl/o Somajiguda, Hyderabad along with the construction permition no. 4882/GHMC|KPL12O22-BO daled 31-12-2022 it fite no. 0'12397/GHMC/6055/KPL2 t2022-Bp with respect to the plot no.2B2 and 283 in S!.No. 180, 197 and 200 situated at xukatpartyVitiage and Mandal, Medchal tvalkajgiri District or any other proceedings of the iuthority under RTI Act 2005 pending disposal of the above writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: SRt. R BALA SUBRAMANYAM Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Gp FOR TNFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Counsel forthe Respondbnt Nos.2&3: Gp FOR MA&UD counsel for the Respondent Nos4&5: sRi RAVI MAHENDER sc FoR GHMc The Court made the following: ORDER ! t ,l (. HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BIIEEMAPAXA WRIT PETITION No. L86L OF 2o24 ORDER: Petitioner seeks to set aside letter No' 252lRTI/TPS /KZ/GHMCl2O23, dated 26.09-2023 issued bv Respondents 4 and 5 and consequently, direct them to provide information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2O05 ([or short, 'the ActJ, as per his representation dated 26'06'2023' Petitioner claims to be the absolute owner of Plot

2. No. 282 admeasuring 288 square yards in Survey No' 2OO of Kukatpally Village, purchased through a registered agreement of sale-cum-GPA No. 3746 of 2009 from his vendor,' G Anand Reddy and another, who filed O.S- No. 22 of 2023 before the Senior Civil Judge, Medchal Malkajgiri District, against petitioner. While so, petitioner submitted representation dated

26.06.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to furnish documents filed by Gottimukkala Sridevi along with Construction Permission No. 4882 / GHMC I KPL I 2022-BO dated 31 .12.2022, concerning Plot Nos. 282 and 283 in Survey Nos' I l o l lao, 197, and 20O of Kukatpally Village. The petitioner alleges that the said permission was obtained by misrepresenting facts and suppressing material information. However, Respondents 4 and 5 have ar:ted arbitrarily and did not provide the requested information. According to petitioner, information sought is a public record under Sections 35, 74, arrd 76 of the Indian Evidence Act and the RTI Act, hence, refusal to provide the same violates the principles of natural justice and the objectives of the 2005 Act. It rs stated that construction permission was granted without verifying the documents ald title flow. Petitioner's vendor, in collusion with Sreenidhi Infra, filed a false suit against petitioner to cancel the agreement of sale- cum-GPA No. 3746 of 2OO9 , despite receiving the full sale consideration. Ir is stated that petitioner received letter dated

22.08.2023 from the 5ft respondent stating that the information sought is related to third,party documents and requires consent of the owner under Rule 11(1). In response, he sent reply notice dated 09.09.2023, emphasizing tlre public nature of municipal corporation's records and citing judgments such as Indian Express NeutsPaPer (Bonbag) Put' Ltd. a. tlnion of India. and Ram Vishal a' S.P. Gupto a. Ilnlon of Indial ' Dutarakaptasad Jaisual2 to support his contention' It is stated, he also received another letter dated 26'09 '2023 from the5threspondentStatingthatM/sSreenidhilnfrahad requested not to provide the documents to any third party' According to petitioner, Respondents 4 and 5 failed to appiy their minds and acted in collusion with M/s Sreenidhi Infra to suppress the defects in granting the construction permission' The case of Respondents 3 to 5' based on the 3. counter-affidavit is that petitioner sought information relating to a building permission issued to a t-l"rird party; responding to the Same,theyissuedletterdated22.os.2O23totheapplicantof building permission, requesting consent for furnishing information. The applicant - M/ s Sreenidhi Infra submitted representation dated l2'Og'2023 requesting that information not be disclosed to any third party' and the same was informed to petitioner through the impugned letter' Respondents argue ' atR 1982 sc 149 t etR 2ooo NaP os \ \ I I .t that under Rule 11(1) of the 2005 Act, consent of the owner is mandatory for disclosing third-party information. They contend that petition(:r has an alternative remedy under Section 19, hence, Writ Petition is not maintainable.

4. Learned counsel petitioner Sri R. Balasubrahmanyam submits that Respondents 3 to 5 have not acted according to the provisions of the 2005 Act. It is submitted that the information sought is a public document as per Section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act. He relied qn the judgment of this Court in D.K. Ndrdgna Rao o. State of Telanganas to contend that mere supply of copl' of building j permission u,ould not endanger the life or physical safety of any person as per Section 8 of the Act. According to him, information sought is not conhdential and not a trade or commercial secret protected by law and disclosure may be allowed il the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interest of such third parlv as per Section 11. \ \ t :o::(z) at-D q t: (t s) I 5 Sri Ravi Mahender, learned Standing Counsel for

5. the Corporation submits that the impugned order was passed in compliance with law, hence, no exception can be taken to the impugned order and the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed' Further, it is submitted that petitioner has an effective alternative remedy under Section 19 of the Act and he has to avaii the same. As could be seen from the material available on 6. record, it is evident that petitioner requested to furnish .the documents relating to building permission issued in favour of a third party. Apt to refer in this context to Section 7 4 of tbe Indian Evidence Act which defines public docriments and Section 76 which mandates that certified copies of public documents be provided upon request' As per Section 74' the documents forming the Acts, or records of the Acts of the bodies and tribunals and of sovereign authoritY, ol official public officer legislative judicial and executive of India or of kept in arly state or union foreign country, Public records territory of Private documents are public documents. The I I \ 6 document sought salisfies the del-rnition of ,public document, as ( per Section 7.+.

7. Further, this Court in D.K. Naragana Rao,s case {supra} held that mere supply of copy of sale deed rvould not endanger the life or physical safety of any person as per Section 8 of ttre 2OO5 Act, as such, directed the authorities to provide said document along with other docurnents within lO days. In this case, respondents have not produced the representation of the applicant who took construction permission from . the authorities and did not mention the danger which may be caused to the applicant if the authorities disclose the inlormation

8. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation points out that as per RuIe 11(1) of the Act, consent of the owner is required for furnishing the information sought. Learned counsel for petitioner rebutted the said contention saying that information sought is not confidential and the nature of document itself is public and it should be made available to general public to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In this qrntext, a cursory look at Section 11(1) makes it clear that \ I 1l 7 where a Central Public Information Ofhcer or a Stat'e Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidentiai by that third party' the Central Public Information Officer or State Pubiic Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third part5r of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Ofhcer or State Public Information Officer, as the case tnuy t"' intendstodisclosetheinformationorrecord,orpartthereof' and invite the third party to make a submission iry writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed' and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information' provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interestindisc]osureoutweighsinimportanceanypossible harm or injury to the interests of such third party' In view of thesame,itistobeheldthatSectionll(1)whichrequiresthe owner for disclosing thirty party information consent of the I \ / ( must be balanced against the objectives of the Act' [n this case, construction pcrmission issued by GHMC is a public record and its disclosure is in the public interest particularll' when allegations of misrepresentation and illegal construction are involved. Hence, it can safely be heid that respondent's reliance on the said provision is misplaced. g. Further, in Staf,e of U-P. tt. Rqi Nc,rain4, the Court recognized the right to information as an integral pa rt of the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression' guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution' It is further held that citizens have a right to know activities of government which is necessary for functioning of _about democracy. Petitioner also cited precedents emphasizing the

10. importance of transparency in public records. In S'P' Gupta's case (supra), the Supreme Court ruled that disclosure should only be withheld if it negatively impacts public interest and conflicts rvith public policy. However, if disclosure is necessary for public's benefit, it must be promptly executed' The Court I 4 (1975) 4 scc 428 \ \ I Y I () emphasised the concept of an open and accountable government, wherein the government is answerable to the people for its actions. This concept aligns with the right to information protected under the freedom of speech and expression, as outlined in Article 19(1)(a) of the Constirution' In a democracy, transparency and accountabiliry are essential and citizensmusthaveaccesstoinformation.Theonlyexceptionto this right is when the information pertains to nationai security or its disclosure would harm the public interest' Similarly, in Ram Vishal's case (supra)' the C<iurt i 1. underscored the presumption in favour of providing certified copies of public records. The record of Municipal Coforation is a public record and usually, it will be presumed that there should be no difhculty in getting the certihed copy of public the l?iqhl to record. Apart from this, after enactment of t 2005 , the position has become more liberal' If lnlormation Ac petitioner applies for certified copy of public record and it has been denied, there must be some reason and this reason ought to fraft been placed on record by filing appropriate record in this regard and needless to say that supported by an affidavit of I petitioner. / 10

12. In view of the above legal position and since the C information sought by petitioner is crucial for pursuing legal remedies in ().S. No. 22 of 2023 and for ensuring compliance with municipal rdgulations, denial of information undermines the petitioner's right to access public records. Petitioner demonstrated that denial of information is arbitrary ancl violates the principles of natural justice, warranting intervention of this Court. In that view of the matter, respondents' conter-rtion that petitioner has an alternative remedy under Section 19 of the RTI Act does not stand to scrutiny. This Court finds merit in the petitioner's contentions, hence, of the view that letter No. 2S2IRTI/TPS /KZ/}HMC/2O23 dated 26.09.2023 i6 to be set aside.

13. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed, setting aside the letter dated 26.09.2O23. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to provide information sought by petitioner in his representation dated 26.06.2O23 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. \ I I Y o I 1l

14. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications' if any shall stand closed. //TRUE COPY// so/. K. AMMAJT ANT REGISTRAR A SI ECTION OFFICER to'', . ,n" Principal Secretary (lnformation and Public Relations) Secretariat' HYderabacl'

2.ThePrincipalsecretary(MAandUD)Secretariat,Hyderabad.

3. The Commissioner' GHMC' Tankbund' Hyderabad' -I[%3."i1r""i""-pp'B'',11qit'")'KukatpalvZone'GHMC'Kukatparrv'

5. The City Planner' fut<atpatty Zone' GHMC' Medchal Malakaigiri District' 6. One CC to SRI' n enUn SUBRAMANYAM 7. One CC to SRI RAVI MAHENDER SC FOR GHMC tOPUCi R Two ccs to GP ron-rr'r5onNllnrloN ' i[i;;i;]angana [our] ' il# t *: iif '.y***g #f; ' ffi X3["J, 3 :i""Ili' TEcHNoLoGY '!ioh Advocate [OPUCI court for the D eve ro p me nt' H is h 1 0. Two CD CoPies KKS GJP &( i HIGH COURT DATED:2810112025 I I I ORDER WP.No.1861 of 2024 t 5 I t 2 t llArl 2025 z O t * ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS O,t lrF I ltlr"'