Anumalla Surender v. The State of Telangana

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 an Order, Direction or Writ, more particularly a Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.2 in adjudicating the Petitioner's Second Appeal Dt.13.O1 .2025 under RTI Act 2005 filed by the petitioner seeking to provide copy of the OMR Answer sheet bearing Hall ticket No 4413455 for written test held on O4.O9.2O22 for Junior Assistant Grade-2 vide Employment Notification No.0212022 Dated 17.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No.5 as illegal, improper, unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and consequently direct the Respondent No.4 to issue copy of the OMR Ansu'er sheet bearing Hall ticket No 4413455 for written test held on 04.09.2022 for Jurior Assistant Grade-2 vide Employment Notification No.O2l2O22 Dated 17.06.:2022 issued by the Respondent No.5 IA NO: 1 0F 2025 petition under Sectron 151 CPC praying that in the cilcumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 to issue copy of the OMR Ansu,€rr sheet bearing Hall ticket No 4413455 for written test held on 04.09.2O22 for Jurrior Assistant Grade-2 vide Employment Notification No.0212022 Dated 17.06..21)22 issued by the Respondent No.5, pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI V.YADU KRISHNA SAINATH Counsel for the Respondents No.1&2 : GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY Counsel for the Respondent No.3to5:SRl T.SRI HARSHA REDDY,SC FOR SCCL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE T. VINOD KUMAR Writ Petition No. 9324 of 2025 ORDER: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Assistant Government Pleader for Information and Technology appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and Sri T.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.3 to 5, and with the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the Writ Petition is taken up for hearing and dlsposal at the admission stage.

2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that though he has filed an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'), on 13.01.2025, to provide OMR answer sheets in relation to written test held on 04.09.2022 for Junior Assistant Grade-2 exam, the said information has not been furnished; and that aggrieved by the non- furnishing of information, he has filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act and thereafter, further appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act.

3. It is also the contention of the petitioner that in terms of Section 19(6) of the Act, the authorities are required to dispose of the second appeal preferred under Section 19(3) of the Act within 30 days, but the same is not disposed oF till date. Hence, the present Writ petition is filed to direct the 2nd respondent herein to dispose of the aforesaid appeal expeditiously. 2 r''"- \. --r

4. Per contra, learned Assistant Government pleader for Home appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and .2 submits that the provisions oF section 19(6) of the Act would not b() applicable in relation to appeal lled under Section l9(3) of the Act and |.herefore, the claim of the petittoner that the appeal is required to dispose of within 30 days is factually incorrect.

5. Learned Government pleader would further submit that the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner is presently vacant and already a notification has been issued for filling up the aforesaid vacancy; and that once the office of the State Chief Information Conrrnissioner is filled up, lhe authority would dispose ofthe appeals filed befcre it under the Act. 6, Learned Standing Counsel appearing on behelf of respondent Nos.3 to 5 submits that tn response to the apptication nrade by the petitioner under the Act for being furnished with copies of his OMR answer sheets of the written test held on 04.09.2022 pursuan: to the notification dt.17.06.2022, the petitioner has been allowed to physically inspect, as such, OMR sheets cannot be furnished to the petitioner. 7 I have taken note of the respecuve contentiols urged B. At the outset, it is to be noted that the appeal filed by the petitioner before the 2nd respondent under Section l9(3) of the Act is second appeal. Section 19(6) of the Act, on which reliance is plac,:d 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 deal with the second appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Act. Thus, the claim of the petitioner on the ground 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.

9. Insofar as the disposal of the appeals filed with the 2nd 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 notification inviting application for filling up the vacancy in the office of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the matter is under active consideration. Since, the l't respondent authority has already initiated steps 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.

10. As noted above, since, the 1't respondent authority had already initiated steps for filing up the vacanry of State Chief Information 4 \ 'r"'j - Commissioner-, this court is of the view that on the eiforesaid vacancy in the office of State Chief Information Commissione r is filled up, the respondents-a uthorities shail dispose of the pendin-o appears which are filed before the said authority and are kept pending all through this period, as expeditiously as possible.

11. Subject to above observation, the Writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. t2 Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in thij writ petition shall sta nd closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-V.KAVtTHA DEPUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The Principal Secretary, Department of lnformation T<:chnology, Electronics and Communications, State of Telangana, Secretarial Buildings, Secretariat, Hyderabad

2. The State Chief lnformation Commissioner, Telangana State lnformation Commission, Hyderabad

3. The Appellate Authority, General Manager'-(Human Flesources Department), Singaidni Collieries Company Limited (SCCL), Bhadradri Kothagudem District. The Public Information Officer, Singareni Collieries C:mpany Limited (SCCL)' Bhadradri Kothagudem District The Chairman and lVlanaging Director. Singareni Col ieries Company Limited (SCCL), Bhadradri Kothagudem District, 4 5 r) 7 o One CC to SRI V.YADU KRISHNA SAINATH Advocate [OPUC] Two CCs to GP FOR INFORMATION TECHNOLOG Y, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] One CC to SRI P.SRI HARSHA REDDY, SC for Singlareni Collieries Company Limited. [OPUC] Two CD Copies. I BSK LS ,/ HIGH COURT DATED:2710312025 (- l2 nPn \\t\-a\-. aS r' 1iC ,, €. ((\(' C) -\-l" ORDER WP.No.9324 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ,/1 /Z z,/+,/l_;