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 such appropriate writ, order or direction more so particularly one in the nature of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the 1st respondent in not considering the RTI Appeal dated. 19-9-2024 fited against the Letter dated 24-B- 2024 of the 2nd respondent refusing to furnish the documents and information sought by the petitioner vide RTI application dated. 23-07.-2024, as arbitrary, illegal and in violation of the provisions of Right to lnformation Act, 2005 and consequently direct the respondents 1 and 2 to furnish the documents and information sought by the petitioner vide RTI Application dated. 23-7 -2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court ma,/ be pleased to direct the 3rd respondent to hear the Revision case vide Memo r\o. 786 M.l.(2)12O22 only after furnishing the documents and information soughl by the petitioner in Application dated 23-7 -2024 under Right to lnformation Act, 2005 by the 1st and 2nd respondents, pending disposal of the writ petition by this llonorable Court. lA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cirr:umstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to place the subsequent events and docu.nents on record. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI HARI SREEDHAR Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.1 TO 3: GP FOR MINES AND GEOLOGY Counsel forthe Respondent Nos.4 & 5: - The Court made the following: ORDER ( HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAI{A WRIT PETITION No. 2A777 0F 2024 ORDER: Petitioner, u,ho claims to be a prospecting license_ holder, is stated to have filed Revision before the 3.d respondent - Revisional Authoriry under Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 challenging the proceedings of the Director of Mincs and Geologr, Hyderabad d,ated 25.O1.2022 rejecting his quarry lease Application for quartz and feldspar over an extent of 4.046 hectares in Survey No. 76 ol Chedurupally Vitlage, Veldanda Mandal, Nagarkurnool District under Telangana Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966. During pendency of the said Revision, Respondents 4 and 5 got themselves impleaded as parties to Revision vide order dated

31.O8.2O24, horvever, thc said order copy, despite the request, was not furnished. In connection therewith, petitioner seeking certain documents and information, hled an Application dated 23.07 .2024 before the 2"d respondent _ public Information Officer-cum-Assistant Director of Mines & Geologr (Law) under the Right to Information Act, 20O5 (for short, .the Act,) which are essential for making submissions in the Revision. The 2"d rcspondent refused to furnish the documents by letter dated 24.Oa.2O24 on rhe ground that Revision is pending with the 2 '1 governmen t and the same had not a ttained finality. Questioning the said letter, petitioner is stated to have filed Appeal befcrre the lstrespondent on 19.O9.2024, but the same was not considered so far. Meanwhile, the 3,,t respondent is pressurizing to argue the Revision despite filing Memo dated 31 .O8.2024 bringing to his notice that <locuments and information sought by him under the Act are n()t furnished and the said information is necessary for arguing tlre Revision. However, the 3rd respondent issued notice fi_ring the ,date of hearing as ir9.1O.2Oj4. Hence, the Writ peririon.

2. The 2"d respondent filed countcr stating that petitioner filed RTI Apprication on 23.o7.2024 tr; furnish all the files, including note liles, related to grant arrd rejection of prospecting licence / mining leasc / quarry lease applications in respect of land in subject survey ntrmber, bu t the same was rejected by the impugned letter stating that Rc.vision Iiled by him is still pcnding with the government. During Appeal, ths 1.t respondent Appellate Authority called for a pcrsonal hearing on O4.7O.2O24 at i 1.3O a. in their chambers so as to clispose the Appeal, uide letter dated 24.O9.2024, hou,ever, petitioner failed to attend l hr: same. Hcnce, the Appcal rvas clisposed of on

14.10.2Cl24 holding that as per records, the PIO had already furnished the required informa[ion uide letter impugned'

3. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Hari Sreedhar submits that information sought by petitioner is not prohibited under the provisions ol the Act. It is submitted that the said information is crucial to protect his lawful rights in Revision' Learned counsel submits that in Writ Petition No' 26300 of 2022 filed by his client, this Court directed the 3'd respondent to dispose the Revision within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. According to him, since the Director of Mines & Geolory retired on 31.O8.2O24, by order of even date, the government appointed the 3'd respondent Revisional Authority to discharge the functions of the Director o[ Mines & Geolory, hence, Revisional Authority cannot hear the Revision filed against the order of Director of Mines and Geolory as the same amounts to the Dircctor sitting over his order which is not permissible in law. Learned counsel also submits that petitioner could not attend the personal hearing scheduled on 04 1O'2O24 as he underwent cardiac surgery and was taking treatment by staying at his brother's house, as such, the notice was not served on him. Further, learned counsel submits that the information 4 sought was not furnished, as claimed b], the respondc'nts and in the order impugned, it was stated that required information could not be supplied as Revision is pending.

4. Learned Government Pleader for Mines & Geologr submits that as per Section 8( 1)(i) of the Act, the information sought for cannot be furnished, hence, the 2"d respr>ndent passed the impugned order and the same cannot bc frund fault with. lt is submitted that petitioner has remedy of Appeal before the State Information Commissioner, however, \r'ithout availing the same, he approached this Court. Hence, requests to dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. Since the prayer in the Writ Petition is simple to direct Respondents l and 2 to lurnish the docum( nts / informalion sought under the Application dated 2,\.O7 .2024 , this Court is not inclined to go into the aspects plearled in lhe writ affldavit. Surrce to deal with the questior r.r,hether petitioner is entitled to receive the information sought tr not.

6. As could be seen from the material, petitioner sought certain documents relating to grant and rejection of a1l prospective / mining lease / quarry lease application s of lease for the land in Survey No. 76 of Chedurupally Village, so as to proceed with the Revision hled by him challenging thr. rejection 5 of his quarry lcase application for QuarLz and Feldspar over an extent of 4.046 Hectares. The said request was turned down by order dated 24.O8.2O24 citing pendency of Revision. [rarned Government Pleader drawing attention o[ this Court to Section 8(1)(i) of the Act submits that cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secrelaries and other officers are exempted from disclosure, however, Proviso says that decisions of Council of Minislers, the reasons thereof and the material on the basis oi which decisions were taken shall be made public atter the decision has been taken and the matter is complete or over. In this case, since Revision as stated supra is pending considcration and there is a direction from this Court in Writ Petition No. 263OO of 2022 that pending consideration of Revision, not to take steps for grant of lease in favour of third parties, which means that decision has not yet been taken, the 2nd respondent refused to furnish the information citing pendency of Revision. The said act, in the considered view of this Court, is in accordance with the provisions of Section 8. [n view o[ the same, the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the provisions of the Act does not prohibit from disclosing the information sought, cannot be accepted. Furthermore, petitioner, if aggrieved by the order o[ the appellate authorir-v, has to approach the second =:- ( { YI \ 6 appellate authority i.e. State Information Commisrsioner under the RTI Act, 2OO5, but without exhausting that renredl', straight away approached this Court. 7 - In the light of the above, this Court is of the opinion that Writ Pctition is liable to be dismissed, and is ac<:ordingly, dismissed. No cosl s.

8. Consequently, Miscellaneous Applicar-ions, if any shall stand closed. //rRUE CoPYtt DEPUry fiF]s'nan / SECTIOI/ OFFICER SD/. V. KAVITHA 9n" 99 to SRI HAR| SREEDHAR, Advocate tOpUCt Two CCs to Gp FOR MTNES^AND GEOIOCV, rf igh bourt for the State of Telangan_a, at Hyderabad. [OUTI Two CD Copies j..Jl,: - To 1 2

3. PSK. KV Po^c. HIGH COURT DATED:0510312025 I I I ORDER WP.No.28777 of 2024 ,/t' ./'..() l \ 2 0 ,tult mr ) DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^q. ,,\E\x