Mohammed Sadiq 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 a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not furnishing the information sought by the petitioner under Sec. 6 (1) 19(1) and 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005 pertaining to Sy.No. 231 admeasuring Ac. '19.28 gts. and Sy No. 235 admeasuring Ac. 14.39 gts., situated at Gavicherla Revenue Village, Sangem Mandal, Warangal District, as illegal, arbitrary and in contradiction to the provisions of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 apart from being violative of Article 14 and 21 ol Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to provide the information requested by the petitioner in application dated 01.03 2025 a I t a t , a l a s t ) $ IANO:1OF2 025 Petition under section 15 1 cpc praying that in the .ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High cr>-rrt may be pleased to direct the respon,lents to forthwith act upon the application of the petitioner dated 04 09.2025 Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALAGIRI Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : Gp FOR REVENTJE counsel for the Respondents No.4 : Gp FoR TS INFoRIllATloN coMMISSIoN The Court made the following: ORDER , I t a * a {' t * a f * a i a i l t , t I > THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T' MADHAVI DEVI WRIT PETITION No.3069() OF 20.25 ORD ER: tn this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in furnishing the information sought for by the petidoner under Sections 6(i)' 19(1) and 19(3) of the Right to Information Act' 2Oo5 (for short 'RTI Act') pertaining to the land in Sy Nos'231 and 235 admeasurlng Ac.19.28 gts and Ac' 14'39 gts respectively' situated in Gavicherla Revenue Vitlage, Sangem Mandal' Warangal District' as illegal and arbitrary and is consequently seeking a direction to the information requested bY him ln respondents to Provide apptication dated O1 03'2O25'

2. Heard the learned counsei for the petitioner' learned Government Pleader for Revenue appearing for respondents No I to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Telangana State Information Commission appearing for respondent No 4' Learned counsel for the pelitioner submitted that neither the Public Information Officer nor the 1't aPpellate and 2"d the aPPlication of the appellate authority have acted upon petitloner I I \!f-\ - -- 1 7

4. Lrarned Ciove rnment Pleader for RTI appear rrg for the respondents submitteci that thb application under Sc,: ion 6(1) of the Act has nol lrccn madc to the Public Information Ofiicer, but it has been submitted lo the Tahsildar, who is not th(, cornpctent a uthority to [urnish irr[ormarion.

5. Learned counsel for the petilioner, however, ha s dmwn the attention of this Clourt lo Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, v hictr reads as under:- " Section 6(3) of lndia's Right to Information (k1'I) Ac| 2)O5, rnandates that a public authori,q must 'rctrtsfer an R'I-[ application to anoth,,r pubLic atLthoitA if the requested information is held by that other authoity or relates. to iis functions. This transkr must oca)r within Jh,e dags of receiuing the application, and le applicent must be infonned of the transfer. "

6. He thereforc, submitted that if the authori . u,ho has received the applit:ation is not the competent authonti.. he ought to have trans[t rrcd t he application to the Officer having the jurisdiction ancl ought to have informed about the saic trzrnsfer to the petitioner. Ht. further submitted that none of thj authorities have informed thc pe titioner .that Tahsildar is no the Public Infurrnation Officer- According to the petitioner, TaL r ildar is the hrblic Information Offi cer. J -) 7 . Having regard to the rival submissions of both the partles' this Court is of the opinion that respondent No'2 ought to have furnishedtheinformationwithintheprescribedtime.Neitherthe

3.drcspondentnorthe4mrespondenthavenotrespondedtothc applications filed by the petitioner and if respondent No' 2 was of the opinion that the petitioner has not made appiication to the appropriate authority, he ought to have transferred the same to the aPProPriate authoritY' ln vieu' thereof, respondents No'2 to 4 are directed to 8. consider thc application submitted by the petitioner and to furnish information sought for by him' within a period o[ four (04) weeks from thc date of receipt of a copy of this order' g. With the above direction' this Writ Petition is disposed of' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications' if any, pending in this writ petition stand closed -SD/-C. DEEPIKA ISTANT REGISTRAR S t a \ t , a + t t To, //TRUE COPY// 1 SECTION OFFICER The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Telangana Secretariat' State of Telanoana. Hvderabad. The P-ublic lnformation Officer-cum- Tahsildar' Sangem Mandal' Warangal District ini n"r"nr" Divisional officer, Warangal' The Telanqana State lntormliidn Co*tiGtion D No5-4-399 Samachara Hakku Bhavan Housing a"i?iiililaiiirj''i'i"oii-n1-LJnnu'rket Hvderabad - 500 001. 5""" CC to SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALAGIRI' Advocate tgP-U9l ;ffi ;;.i;CP?on irverl-G Hish court for the state of relansana 111'Ja. to cp FoR TS lNFoRMArloN coilrMlssloN' High court for the State of Telangana. [OUT] Two CD CoPies. BSK BS \q- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 B HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 1'> I e o tJ {. (( ( sj4/ 1ti 0[T 20ffi l) , ^,r1-',,- _ ORDER WP.No.30690 of 2025 DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETTTION WITHOUT COSTS \r-@P&[ ft. 6rdis a t ; v J v a s t t j rl. i '}