Banoth Naresh v. 1. The State lnformation Commission

2. The District Forest Officer/ First Appellate Authority, Under RTI Act, 2005, Kothagudem Town, Bhadadri Kothagudem District.

3. The State Public lnformation Officer/Forest Range Officer, Tekulapalli Town, Bhadadri Kothagudem District. ...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 issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of the . lVlandamus by declaring the action of the respondents more particularly action of the respondent No.3 in not furnishing the information sought vide application dated 2810812024, thereby violating the very provisions of RTI Act, 2006 as being illegal, unjust, contrary to law and contrary to Article 14, 16, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to supply information sought by the petitioner vide letter dated 28-08-2024 within the time frame, as considerable time has already elapsed. .rl.*;& r.:)di lA NO: 1 OF 2025 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 direct the respondent authorities to supply information so.rght by the petitioner vide letter dated 2ttl01l2024 within the time frame, as considerable time has already elapsed pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRl. ANGOTHU NEHRU Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY The Court made the following: ORDER w THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition N o.7615 ot2O25 . ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and perused the record.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that despite he approaching the 3'd respondent and making an application dt.2B.OB.2O24 seeking inFormation under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'), the said information has not been furnished within the time frame under the Act.

3. It is the fufther case of the petitioner that due to non-furnishing of information by the 3'd respondent, the petitioner had filed first appeal before the 2nd respondent and thereafter, a fufther appeal to the lst respondent on 29.01.2025, and in spite of the appeal being pending for more than one and half month, the same is not being disposed of by the 1't respondent authority, though it is required to be disposed off within a period of 30 days.

4. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 3 submits that the petitioner was furnished with information initially by sending the same 2 through ordinary post on 26.09.2024 and after filing of the present Writ Petition, the petitioner was furnished with information once again by sending the same through registered post on 20.03.2025.

5. Learned Government Pleader would further submit that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the action of the respondents-authorities in not furnishing or furnishing insufficient information, he has a right of appeal and the petitloner having availed the right of second appeal before the 1't respondent on 29.01.2025 under Section 19(3) of the Act, he cannot maintain the oresent Writ Petition.

6. Learned Government Pleader further submits that the time limit prescribed under Section 19(6) of the Act would rrot be applicable in relation to appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Acl:/ and therefore, the claim of the petitioner that the appeal is required to b,: disposed off within 30 days is not correct.

7. Learned Government Pleader would further subnlit that the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner is presentl), vacant and already a notification has been issued for filling up the aforesaid vacancy; and that once the offi:e of the State Chief Information Commissioner is filled up, the authority would dispose of the appeals filed before it under the Act. B. I have taken note of the respective contentions urged. i ( 3

9. At the outset, it is to be noted that the appeal flled by the petitioner before the 1't respondent under Section 19(3) of the Act is second appeal. Section 19(6) of the Act, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner to contend that the said appeal is required to be disposed of within a period of 30 days, it is to be noted that Section 19(6) of the Act is applicable in relation to appeals filed under Sections 19(1) and 19(2) of the Act and does not apply to the second appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Act. Thus, the claim of the petitioner that the appeal preferred under Section 19(3) of the Act is to be disposed of within 30 days is without merit and accordingly rejected.

10. Insofar as the disposal of the appeals filed with the 1't respondent under Section 19(3) of the Act are concerned, admittedly the.office of the 2nd respondent is lying vacant for long time and is the subject matter of a Writ Petition before a Division Bench of this Court, wherein it has been stated on behalf of the respondents of the Government having issued a notlfication inviting application for filling up the vacancy in the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the matter is under active consideration. Since, action has already been initiated to fill up the vacancy in the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner by issuing a notification, this Court cannot prescribe any time limit for the authorities to complete the aforesaid exercise or direct the appeal filed by the petitioner to be disposed of by indicating time frame. ..._.__-..'.: I t 4

11. As nored above, since, the steps for filling up the vacancy to the office of the 1't respondent authority already been initiated, this Couft is of the view that on the aforesaid vacancy in the office oF State Chief Information (lommissioner being filled up, the 1st resp,ondent shall dispose of the pending appeals which are filed before the saicl authorify and are kept pending all through this period, as expeditiously as possible. L2, Subject to above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs

13. Miscelianeous petitions, if any, pending in this writ petition shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-L.LAKSHMI BABU EPUTY REGISTRAR / ) c SECTION OFFICER The State lrformation Commission, Under Right to lnformation Act, 2005 Simachara lakkula Bhavan, M.J. Market' Hyderabad - 500 001 ' The District Forest Officer/ First Appellate Authority, Under RTI Act, 2005, Kothagudern Town, Bhadadri Kothagudem District. The state Public lnformation officer/Forest Range Officer, Tekulapalli Town, Bhadadri Kothagudem District. One CC to S;Rl ANGOTHU NEHRU, Advocate [OPU()] Two CCs b GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad [OUT] To, 1 2 J 4 5

6. Two CD CoPies BSR LS I HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 ORDER WP.No.7615 of 2025 o ( t rJHE S T4 $r o 1t tpn ZW Se4 16ggO t DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT GOSTS A,^ \ r'- k t