P.Venkata Seshaiah v. The Principal Secretary to Government
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 44. Subject to above limited direction the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 13th September 2006. BSB
Judgment
The petitioner is a unemployee filed this petition seeking a direction by way of Mandamus to furnish the information sought in his representation dated 20th March 2006 by the second respondent herein.
The Government, as a welfare measure, issued orders
in G.O.Ms.No.98 dated 15.4.1986 providing employment to the displaced persons in the project- affected areas. In connection with the same, the petitioner filed an application on 20th March 2006 seeking information with regard to posts, which are filled up and also the posts, which are likely to arise from 20.3.2006 to
31.12.2007.
Though the learned counsel submitted that he is entitled to such information in view of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, but the respondent has not considered yet the representation filed by the petitioner. In that view of the matter I dispose of the writ petition directing the second respondent herein to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 20th March 2006 and pass appropriate orders as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within two months from today. It is also made clear that it is open for the respondent to examine the request of the petitioner whether the information sought for, is covered by definition ‘information’ so as to furnish such information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Subject to above limited direction the writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. ________________________ R.SUBHASH REDDY, J. Date: 13th September 2006. BSB
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 13 Sep 2006. The bench was R SUBHASH REDDY.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.