B. Yella Goud v. State of Telangana

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 land situated in Sy.No.476 and subdivided Sy.No.476141 , 47618, 4761111, 4761112, Mamunoor Revenue Village of Khila, Warangal Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary and in contradiction to the provisions of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 apart from being violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to provide the information requested by the Petitioners in application dated 17.06.2025. ,6 ? l} e i + + ,} t I \l + t * lA NO: '1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in the afftdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccr.rrt may be ple*ed to direct the 4th respondent to forthwith act upon the appli()ation of the petitioner dated 08.09.202fi. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALlirSlRl Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR REVENL,E Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : GP FOR TS INFORIIATION COMMISSION The Court made the following: ORDER i; * ,lt t, ,i & i {} 't $ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI trIRIT PETITION No.3O7O2 OF 2025 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner under Sections 6(1), 19(1) and 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2OO5 (for short 'RTI Act') pertaining to the land situated in Sy.Nos.476 subdivided into Sy.Nos.476lA l, 476/8, 4761 I I 1, 4761 1/2 o[ Mamunoor Revenue Village of Khila, Warangal Mandal and District, as illegal and arbitrary ancl is consequently seeking a direction to the respondents to provide information requested by him in application daLed, 77 .06.2025.

2. Heard the learned cortnscl for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue aopearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Telangana State Information Commission appearing lbr respondent No. 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the Public Information Officer nor the 1't appellate and 2'd appellate authority have acted upon the application of the petitioner. \\ 2

4. l,earned Government Pleader for RTI ap1t,:,:ring for the respondents s,ubmitted that the application undr:r S'ection 6( 1) of the Act has not becn made to the Public [nformatiorr Officer, but it has been submitted to the Tahsildar, who is nol t're competent authority to fr-Lrnish information.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, :rils drawn the attention o[ this Court to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act wl.tich reads as under - "Sectiort. 6(3) of India's Right to Information IRTI) Ac| 2OO5, mandates that a public autl <'ity musr t ransfer an RTI application to an >'her public authoritg if the requested infonnatL t,t is held. by that oth.er authoitg or relates tt its funct'ions. This transkr must occur utithirt fiue days of receiuing tLe application, a nrl the apphcant must be informed of the transfer. "

6. He therefore, submitted that if the autho: [l who has reccived the application is not the competent authr;rity, Lre ought to have transferred the applicatioir to the Offict r having thc jurisdiction and ought to have informed about the sil d transfer to the petitioner. Llc further submitted that none ol t'T rl aLrthorities have informed the petitioner that Tahsildar is n r. the Public Information O1ficcr. According [o the petitioner, Tat siklar is the Public Information Officer. I

7. Having regard to the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.2 ought to have furnished the information within the prescribed time. Neither the

3.d respondent nor the 4th respondent have responded to the applications filed by the petitioner and if respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the petitioner has not madc application to the appropriate authority, he ought to have transferred the same to the appropriate authority.

8. In view thereof, respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and to furnish information sought for by him, u'ithin a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendilg in this writ petition stand closed To, * ;\ + l //TRUE COPY// -SD/-C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ana Secretariat, State of

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Tela Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Public lnformation Officer-cum- Tahsildar, Warangal Mandal, Warangal District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal. 4. The Telangana State lnformation Commission, D.No.5-4-399, Samachara Hakku Bhavan Housing Board Building, Mojam-Jahi-Market Hyderabad - 500 001 5 One CC to SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALAGIRI, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. 7, TWO CCS tO GP FOR TELANGANA STATE INFORMATION COIVIIVIISSION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies. louTl BSK BSw HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 t * * i e a ) \ \,\\ /::' lt 1) t: ) * 1 tr [[I 2925 o -5' ORDER ; WP.No.30702 of 2025 J * l T DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^.r'd4 Yr 65aD3

Petition under Article 226 of lhe 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 land situated in Sy.No.476 and subdivided Sy.No.476141 , 47618, 4761111, 4761112, Mamunoor Revenue Village of Khila, Warangal Mandal, as illegal, arbitrary and in contradiction to the provisions of the Right to lnformation Act, 2005 apart from being violation of Article 14 and 21 of Constitution of lndia and consequently direct the respondents to provide the information requested by the Petitioners in application dated 17.06.2025. ,6 ? l} e i + + ,} t I \l + t * lA NO: '1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 15'l CPC praying that in the ,:ircumstances stated in the afftdavit filed in support of the petition, the High Ccr.rrt may be ple*ed to direct the 4th respondent to forthwith act upon the appli()ation of the petitioner dated 08.09.202fi. Counsel for the Petitioner : SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALlirSlRl Counsel for the Respondents No.1to3 : GP FOR REVENL,E Counsel for the Respondents No.4 : GP FOR TS INFORIIATION COMMISSION The Court made the following: ORDER i; * ,lt t, ,i & i {} 't $ THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE T. MADHAVI DEVI trIRIT PETITION No.3O7O2 OF 2025 ORDER: In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the inaction on the part of the respondents in furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner under Sections 6(1), 19(1) and 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2OO5 (for short 'RTI Act') pertaining to the land situated in Sy.Nos.476 subdivided into Sy.Nos.476lA l, 476/8, 4761 I I 1, 4761 1/2 o[ Mamunoor Revenue Village of Khila, Warangal Mandal and District, as illegal and arbitrary ancl is consequently seeking a direction to the respondents to provide information requested by him in application daLed, 77 .06.2025.

2. Heard the learned cortnscl for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Revenue aopearing for respondents No.1 to 3 and the learned Government Pleader for Telangana State Information Commission appearing lbr respondent No. 4.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the Public Information Officer nor the 1't appellate and 2'd appellate authority have acted upon the application of the petitioner. \\ 2

4. l,earned Government Pleader for RTI ap1t,:,:ring for the respondents s,ubmitted that the application undr:r S'ection 6( 1) of the Act has not becn made to the Public [nformatiorr Officer, but it has been submitted to the Tahsildar, who is nol t're competent authority to fr-Lrnish information.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, :rils drawn the attention o[ this Court to Section 6(3) of the RTI Act wl.tich reads as under - "Sectiort. 6(3) of India's Right to Information IRTI) Ac| 2OO5, mandates that a public autl <'ity musr t ransfer an RTI application to an >'her public authoritg if the requested infonnatL t,t is held. by that oth.er authoitg or relates tt its funct'ions. This transkr must occur utithirt fiue days of receiuing tLe application, a nrl the apphcant must be informed of the transfer. "

6. He therefore, submitted that if the autho: [l who has reccived the application is not the competent authr;rity, Lre ought to have transferred the applicatioir to the Offict r having thc jurisdiction and ought to have informed about the sil d transfer to the petitioner. Llc further submitted that none ol t'T rl aLrthorities have informed the petitioner that Tahsildar is n r. the Public Information O1ficcr. According [o the petitioner, Tat siklar is the Public Information Officer. I

7. Having regard to the rival submissions of both the parties, this Court is of the opinion that respondent No.2 ought to have furnished the information within the prescribed time. Neither the

3.d respondent nor the 4th respondent have responded to the applications filed by the petitioner and if respondent No. 2 was of the opinion that the petitioner has not madc application to the appropriate authority, he ought to have transferred the same to the appropriate authority.

8. In view thereof, respondents No.2 to 4 are directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner and to furnish information sought for by him, u'ithin a period of four (O4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pendilg in this writ petition stand closed To, * ;\ + l //TRUE COPY// -SD/-C. DEEPIKA SISTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER ana Secretariat, State of

1. The Principal Secretary Revenue Department Tela Telangana, Hyderabad

2. The Public lnformation Officer-cum- Tahsildar, Warangal Mandal, Warangal District.

3. The Revenue Divisional Officer, Warangal. 4. The Telangana State lnformation Commission, D.No.5-4-399, Samachara Hakku Bhavan Housing Board Building, Mojam-Jahi-Market Hyderabad - 500 001 5 One CC to SRI SHREYAS REDDY YALAGIRI, Advocate IOPUC] 6. Two CCs to GP FOR REVENUE, High Court for the State of Telangana. 7, TWO CCS tO GP FOR TELANGANA STATE INFORMATION COIVIIVIISSION, High Court for the State of Telangana. [OUT]

8. Two CD Copies. louTl BSK BSw HIGH COURT DATED:0911012025 t * * i e a ) \ \,\\ /::' lt 1) t: ) * 1 tr [[I 2925 o -5' ORDER ; WP.No.30702 of 2025 J * l T DISPOSING OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS ^.r'd4 Yr 65aD3