High Court · 2025

1 The A.P. lnformation Commissioner, (under Right to lnformation Act 2005) (Folmer A.C.B. office Building) Lane bdhind lMozam -Jahi-tt/arket Clock tower, ilVO"riOaO-sO0 001. Repres6nted by its State lnformation Commissioner Sri Y. Anand, S/o. Benjamin, Aged about 43 ye.ars.Occ Ex. Singur"nl Kot6agudem 507 101 Bhadradri Kothagudem District -Employee company !td., Fi'/o. Q, .\o.. DA-s'14, Babu camp, -Coitieries 2 ...RESPONDENTS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the order dated 08.09.2016 in Complaint No. 23829/5lC-Dr.lAl2O16 and consequential order dated 04.01 -2017 in Complaint No. 33553/SlC-Dr.lAt2O16,passed by the 1st respondent by way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari and quash the same by holding that the same are arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction, contrary to the Provisions of Right to lnformation Act 2005. l.A. NO: 1 OF 2017 (WPMP. NO: 7319 oF 20171 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 to suspend the order dated 08.09.2016 in Complaint No. 23829/5lC-Dr-lAl2O16 and consequential order dated 04.01 .2017 in Complaint No. 3,3553/SlC-Dr.lA/2016, passed by the 1st respondent, pending disposal of the Writ Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY WRIT PETITION NO: 6025 OF 2017 Between:

1. K. Thirumala Rao, S/o. K.S.R. Murthy, lnformation Officer, under RTI Act, Addl 500004, Telangana State. Age 59 Years, Deemed Public . Gtt/(Law), SCCL., Hyderabad-

2. A. Madhusudhana Rao, S/o. A.S.Sitarama Sarma Age 58 Years, Deemed Public lnformation Officer, under RTI Act, Chief of Vigilance, SCCL., Kothagudem-S07 1 01 Bhadradri Kothagudem District, 1'elangana State.

3. K.Basavaiah, S/o. Raghavaiah, Aged about 54 Years, General [\Ianager (Personnel) Executive Establishment, Deemed Pubiic lnformation Officer under RTI Act, 2005 The Singareni Collieries Company Limited Kothagudem 507 101, Bhadradri Kothagudem District, Telangana St;rte. ...PETITIONERS AND 1 The A.P. lnformation Commissioner, (under Right to lnformation Act 2005) (Former A.C.B. office Building) Lane behind [Mozam -Jerhi-[Vlarket Clock tower, Hyderabad-s0O 001. Represented by its State lnformation Commissioner, 2 Sri Y. Anand, S/o. Benjamin, Aged about 43 years Occ Ex.Employee of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., R/o. Qr. No. DA-s14, Babu Camp, Kothagudem 507 101 Bhadradri Kothagudem District. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to call for the records relating to the order dated 07.09.2016 in Complaint No. 23436/SlC-Dr lAl2O16 and consequential order dated 04.01.2017 ...RESPONDENTS in Complaint No. 33559/5lC-Dr.lA12016, passed by the 1st respondent by way of issue of a Writ of Certiorari and quash the same by holding that the same are arbitrary, illegal, unconstitutional and one without jurisdiction, contrary to the provisions of Right to lnformation Act 2005. l.A. NO: 1OF 2017(WPMP. NO:7381 OF 20171 . 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 to suspend the order dated 07.09.2016 in Complaint No.23436/5lC-Dr.1A12016 and consequential order dated 04.01 .2017 in Complaint No. 33559/SlC-Dr.lAl2016, passed by the '1st respondent, pending disposal of the Wr.it Petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL Counsel for the Respondent No.1: GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER --7/ // 1 wp-5974 & 6025-2077 NBK, J THE ,BLE C NAGES HEE WRIT PETITION N os.5974 a nd 25 of

01.7 COMMON ORDER: The }nd respondent-Y. Anand, an ex-ernployee ol' The Singareni Collieries Companv Limited (company, for short), sought information vide Application dated 21.01.2016 from the Pubtic [nformation ofl-tcer (PIO), under the Right to Information Act, 2005, listing out l9 various types of information relating to one Koteswar Rao, Orthopedician, who was dismis'sed from service' l.l Likewise, the 2nd respondent sought infonnation v'ide Application dated 01.06.2016, tisting out 6 various types of infonnation relating to dropping of charges against Mr. Nandyala B. Sesha Charyulu, Super'intendent, Survey officer; Mr. T. Gopal, senior survey officer, Rc-lll, and Mr. M. Mallesh, CGM, against whom charge sheets were issued for involvin;3 in OB Removal scam in which illegal payment of Rs-2.18 crore was made to an external explosive agency during the year 2007 ' l.Z Aggrieved by non-furnishing of information, tfte 2nd respondent fited a complaint before the I't respondent-State tnformation Commission, in Complaint No.3 3 5 53/SIC-Dr. I Al20 | 6'

1.3 The commission, vide the impugned order dated 04.01.2017, while recording that the pIO was advised to furnish inforrnati<)n on Point Nos- 11 to t3 of the Application dated 21.01.2016 of the 2"d respondent, and further recording that the Chief Medical Officer (Deemed PIO) furrrished information with regard to Point No.11, observed that the petitionersi herein, who are ! 2 wp_5974 & 6025_2017 NBK, J GM(Personnel), AGM(Law), and GM(Vigilance) failed to provide desired information which arnounts to disobedience of the order of l" respondent, and therefore directed to issue Show Cause notice to the petitioners.

2. Heard Mr. Sriharsha Reddy, leamed Standing Counsel for the company, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and learned Government Pleader for Information Technology. Perused the record. l,eamed counsel for the petitioners srrbrnits that the 2nd respondent-

3. complainant has a rernedy of apireal be lbre ihe Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, whereas the complainimt has straightaway approached the I't respondent. It is further contended that Mr. Murali Sagar, GM (Personnel & Welfare) is the PIO who appeared before the l't respondent-Commission, and the petitioners herein are not parties to the irnpugned Orders and have not appeared before the I't respondent-Cornmission. [t is further contended that out of 17 various Upes of information, the Commission held that for Point Nos.l to [0, 15, 16 and 17, intbrmation need not be turnished, except the Dismissal Order of Koteshwar Rao which is a pLrblic information.

3.1 [t is contended that the Comnrission, vide Order dated 04.01 .2017, by considering the submissicin made by the Mr. G. Murali Sagaq General Manager, that necessary information on Point No.l I was furnished by Chief Medical Officer, and that the infbrnration relating to other Point Nos.12 and 13 is held by the petitioners i.e., GM (Personnel). AGM (Law), and GM (Vigilance) but the same was not provided, issued notice to the petitioners as Deemed PIOs, and there was no notice to the petitioners before passing the impugned Order \-dated 04.01 .2017 and issuing Show Cause notice dated 01.02.2017 directing to 3 wp_5974 & 6025_2017 NBK, J Show Cause as to why a penalty of upto Rs.25,000/- shoul<l not be imposed on the petitioners under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act,2005 fbr not fumishing the information to the applicant/complainant, and why disciplinary action should not be initiated against the petitioners under Section 20(2) of the RTI Act.

4. Having considered the respective submissions and perused the record, prima facie the petitioners are not parties to the proceedings/order dated 08.09.2016, and based on the submission of one Murali Sage r, General Manager on 04.01.2017, that he sought information from the retitioners, the I't respondent passed the Order dated 04.01 .2017 against the petitioners, and also issued Show Cause notice dated 01.02.2017 . Aperusal of the irnpugned Orders nowhere disclose that the petitioners have participated in the proceedings betbre the l't respondent-Commission; and the impugned Order dated 04.01 .2017 , and Show Cause notice dated 01.02.2017 are therefbre liable to be set aside as against the petitioners.

5. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed, setting aLside the impugned Orders dated 04.01.2017, and Show Cause notice dated 01.02.2017 as being devoid of principles of natural justice. No costs. Misccllaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. That Rule Nisi has made Absolute as above witness The Hon'ble SRI ALOK ARADHE, The Chief Justice on this Friday, the Tenth Day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty [:ive. //TRUE COPY/ SD/. M.NAGAMANI STANT RE N OFFICER To,

1. The State lnformation Commissioner, T.G. I Rig ht to lnformation Act 2005)( Former A.C lVlozam -Jahi-[Varket Clock tower, Hyderabad-500 1 n Commissioner, (under B-rilding) Lane behind

2. One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC FOR SCCL 'OPUCI 3. Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT]

4. [Vlain copy to Respondent no.2.

5. Two CD CoPies q BSR TKS HIGH COURT DATED: 1010112025 I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.5974 and 6025 ot 2017 -l]-r.- -. ) i.Jii -'\\.. 17 I'lIu ALLOWING BOTH THE WRIT PETITIONIS, WITHOUT COSTS i