High Court · 2025

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 a WRIT OF CERTIORARI by calling, for the records relating to artd connected with Order No.PDlT(lNV)/HYDI13Bl1l2O24-25 dated 29-1i-2024 of the 3rd Respondent and set aside the same after declaring the action of Respondent Nos.2 to 4 in not accepting the applications of the Petitioner dated 17.10.2024 and 11.O1 .2025 made u/s 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as ittegal, arbitrary, highhanded and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of lndia, and consequently direct Respondent Nos.2 to 4 to furnish immediately the information sought for by the Petitioner under the applications of Petitioner dated 17.1O.2024 and 1 1.01 .2025 made u/s 138(1)(b) of the lncomeTaxAct, 1961 ' lA NO: 2 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 No.3 to reconsider objectively the applications of Petitioner dated 17.10.2024 and 11.01 .2025 made u/s 138(1Xb) of the lncome Tax Act, 1961, and furnish the information solicited therein. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI KAILASH NATH.P.S.S., Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI B.MUKHERJEE, REP. FOR SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent No.2 to 4: SRI N'PRAVEEN REDDY The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE 1'HE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY WRIT PETITION No.21251 of 2O25 ORDER: (Per the llon'bte the Chiel Justlce Sri ApdresrL Kumer SrLgh) Sri Kailash Nath P.S.S., learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri B. Mukherjee, learned counsel representing Sri Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, for respondent No.1. Sri N.Praveen Reddy, learned counsel for responclent Nos.2 to 4.

2. The rejection of an application dated 1'l.lO.2O24 under Section 138(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 196l (hereinafter referred to as, "the Act"), rcqr'testirrg for information relating to Sri Mothukuri Venkateshwar Sharma in respect of the assessment year commencing on the 1"t day of April, 2013, by the office of the principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), Hyderabad, on the ground that the information sought for does not involve \ \ I I, 2 any public interest has been made the subiect matter of challenge in the present writ petition. 3 . The present issue has a conn ection with the matrimonial dispute betrvcen the petitioncr and his ex-wife - Ms. Sindhu Sharma, the elder daughter of Sri Mothukuri Venkateshw'ar Sharma. 1'he r."'ife filed a cornplaint under Section 498-A ol the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (lPC), read u,ith Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and Sections 406 and 323 of IPC in 2O 19 on the file of the Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabao, alleging that her father spent Rs.1,4O,00,00O/- on wedding and gifts to the petitioner and his family purchased around i.5 kgs of gold and 15 kgs of sih,er. The complaint was registered as F.l.R.No.223 ot2019 on27.O4.2019. The petitioner sought dissolutjon of marriage under Section i3(1)(ia) and Section i I 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, in O.P.No'536 of 2022 before the learned. Judge. Principal Family Court, l J Hyder:abad, which was decreed ot 19.07 .2024 dissolving the marriage on grounds of proven crueity by the wife. The petitioncr thereafter approached the C)entra-l Public J Information Officer (CPIO) to furnish certain information. The information was supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 71.06.2025 by the CPIO and the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Unit, Hyderabad. The extract of the said communication reads as under:- " 1 . A complaint was received from Shri Nooty Vashishtha Venkateshwaralu (NV Venkateswaralu) on 19-02-2021 and 07-O5-2021with allegations againsr one Shri Mothukuri Venkateshwara Sharma (MV Sharma). Relevant points of the complaints are stated be1ou, a) Shri MV 'Sharma retired as Assistant Director in the Endowments Department of State Government of Telangana. He had worked as trO of Peddamma Talli Temple in Jubilee Hills. b) Shri NV Venkateswaralu was married to Ms. Sindhu Sharma, eldest daughter of Shri MV Sharma on O2-08-2012. It was furlher stated that mariLal disputes had arisen between the couple and FIR No. 223/2019 was registered on 27-04-2016 in Women Police Station, CCS, Hyderabad. c) Later vide DVC no. 365 of 2O 19 filed on 5-12-2019, before Hon'ble MM Court of Hyderabad, Smt. Sindhu Sharma has l t 4 claimed that her father had spent Rs. 1.3 crore on the marriage arrangements. d) Shri NV Venkateswaralu has further alleged that one Shri Cherukuri Sreedhar, MD and CEO of Transtroy Infrastructure Company had Lransferred few crores of monr:y into an account maintained with Jubilee Hi11s Chcck Post Branch of Andhra Bank. Out of the funds so de posited, Shri MV Sharma has ulilized around Rs.75 lacs to Rs. 1 crore lowards the renovation expenses of Shri Scetharamachandra Swamy 'lemple at Uppal Kalan. 'l'he remaining amount has been uscd for mutual benefit. Hc has filed a TtrP to investigate the above

2. mentioned matter.

3. Further, Shri NV Venkateswzrralu had iiled RTi application before CPIO on 3-ll-2o22 and the said application was disposed of by the CPIO vide order dated 20 ll-2o22. The applicant filed appeal before FAA on 24 Ll-2022 w,hich was disposed off vide order dated 14-12-2022. The stated stzrnd of the Department is that vide Notification dated 27-3-2008 issued by DcpartmenL of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pension, the o/O Director General of Investigation (Income ta-x) has been included in the Second Schedule to RTI Act, t I 5 2005 and thereby the information sought by the appeilant fits into the classilication of exclusions listed in the Second Schedute to RTI Act, 2OO5.

4. The applicant preferred appeal with Hon,ble CIC on O3-O7-2O23, who vide its order dated 04 06 2024 had directed the undersigned to provide broad outcome of the enquiry.

5. The Department f,rled Writ Petition No. 18897 of 2025 against the order of the CIC dated 04-06-2024 . The Department late filed Writ Appeal number 439 of 2025, against the decision Learned Single Bench of Hon'ble Telangana High CourL in hled by Department.

6. However, since till date, no stay has been granted by the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the Writ Appeal, the broad outcomes of the enquiry is being informed to Shri Nooty Vasishta Venkateshwariu (Appellant under RTI Act, 2005) vide this letter. Consequently, the broad outcomes of the enquiry are being proVided below.

7. Broad Outcomes

1. Upon investigation, it was found that Transtroy Infrastructure had transferred certain amounts through its various bank accounts to the account held by Shri Ramachandra Swamy Temple in Uppal ) 6 Branch of Union Bank of India. A commemoration plaque at the temple conltrmed the same. Further, no credit/ debit transactions were found liom the accounts held by Shri Cherukuri Sreedhar or Transtroy Infrastructure to/from accounts held by Shri MV Sharma.

2. Further, vide statement u/s i9(2) of I)BPT Act, 1988 dated 1,7 -Oa-2O23, Shri MV Sharma has dcnied spending Rs. 1.3 crore for the wedding of his daughtcr.

3. Verilication report pertaining to cxpenditure of Rs. 1.3 crore by Shri MV Sharma, on tl're rnarriage of his daughter was uploaded on thc VRU module. Notice u/s 148 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued on 29-O6-2O21.Notice u/s 143(2) of Income 'lax Act, 1961 '"r'as issued on 15-11-202 1,

8. The information so proi,ided to Shri NV Venkateswaralu is noLwithstanding thc state d law that vide Notification daLed 27-3 2008 issued by Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public grievances and Pension. the O/o Director General of Investigation (Income tax) has been included in the Second Schedule tc, RTI Act, 2OO5 and thereby the information classilication of exclusions listed in thc soughl by thc appellant fits into the Second Schedule to RTI Act, 2005." ) ) ,/ 1

4. The petitioner had already preferred an application under Section 138(1)(b) of the Act on I7.7O.2O24 to the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax to furnish the copies of the notice/communication issued to Sri Mothukuri Venkateshwar Sharma pursuant to his complaint dated 18.02.2021 i.e 1n respect of enquiry conducted on tax evasion petition filcd by him. [{e also sought the reply and the statemen.t of Sri Mothukuri Venkateshwar Sharma, lather of his ex-'"vife, if any recorded during the course of the proceedings and the order of the proceedings finalising the same in order to bring the real truth in lar:ger public interest. That has been denied by the impugned order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Irrincipal Director of income Tax (lnvestigation) Hyderabad. The petitioner, being aggrieved, has preferred the instant writ petition I t

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken two-fold grounds - i) that the impugned order is cryptic and does not disclose the exact reasons whv such information cannot be disclosed in public intcrest and ii) that the information sought by the petitioner qu alifies the 8 -t*1'' ':r-rl, . requirement of public interest alrd it would enable him to properly defend himself in the trial in the criminal case instituted by his ex-wife under Section 498-,\ of IpC along n'ith other sections of 1anr.

6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 has strongly opposed the prayer. He submits that the information sought under Section l33(l)(b) of the Act is for the purposes of collecting evidence in a criminal case by the petitioner institutecl by his ex_wife under Section 498-A of lPC. Thc details of the proceedir-rgs under the Act, therefore, can only be provided if they fall in the category under public interest. It is submitted th.t in similar circumstancr:s, a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.76277 of 2025, d,ated 14.07.2025, h;rs retused to interlere in the matter where such informatron sought by one of the partners of a lirm under Section l38(1)(b) of the Act u,as denied by the authorities. The dispute of this nature is akin Lo the i.nter se dispute between the partners of the partnership firm. Therefore, the department has rightly refused to allow it. 9 7 . It is submitted that the order impugned is not cryptic. No further elaboration on the issue of public interest could have been made by the competent officer urho has examined the application on merits and found it not fit to be allowed

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length.

9. The narration of relevant background facts in the opening paragraphs in this order need not be repeated. 1 0. It is apparent that the pe titioner IS trying to seek information under Section 138(l )(b) of the Act in respect of evasion of tax proceedings initiated at the behest of the petitioner against his father in-law, to be used as arr evidence in a proceeding under Section 498-A of IPC instituted by his ex-wife. The petitioner has already been furnished information under the Right to Information Act, 2005, by the CPIO of the Income Tax Department. Bcyond that, further information as regards evasion of tax proceedings as against an individual by the petitioner and that too to be used as an evidence in a criminal trial \ \ IO cannot fall in the category of public interest. The impugned order also does not appear to suffer from [ack of application of mind or proper reasoning. It is always open for thc petitioner to take a defence of thr: information aiready supplied to him uncler the Right to Information Act, 2005, in the criminal proceedings. The disclosure of further in[ormatior-r relating to a proceeding for evasion of ta_x against a thircl party should not be allowecl under the category of public interest. Therefore, we do not fincl any mcrit in this writ petition. 11 The writ petition is accordingly dismissr:d. Hou,ever, there sha1l be no order as to costs. Misccllancous applications pending, if anrr. shall stand closed //TRUE COPY// SD/-B. REKHA RANI ASSTSTANT REGISTRAR tM"- SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI KAILASH NATH.P.S.S, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI N.PRAVEEN REDDY, Advocate IOPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, DEPUTY SOL|C|TOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, High Court for the State of Telangana at Hyderabad tOpUCl Two CD Copies To, 1 2 n 4 BSR LS HIGH COURT DATED: 2310712025 I ORDER 10 sEP 2U5 WP.No.21251 ot 2025 '\. :l- 'r:' ir ' -> rl --i : :t ,-1,,' <./ DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS //z 48/s/<,