On 3/9/12, suresh nangia <
sknangia2004@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My dear Sarbajit
>
> Could you please arrange to put the text of AP High Court Judgement on
> this Board
> It is a very interesting and useful judgement
>
> S K NANGIA
>
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MARCH,
TWO THOUSAND AND TWELVE
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU
WRIT PETITION No.1380 of 2012
Between:
Kadiyam Shekhar Babu
… Petitioner
And
The Chairman,
A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad,
& another.
… Respondents
This Court made the following:
ORDER:-
The petitioner approached this Court with this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking writ of
Mandamus declaring action of the respondents in not issuing photostat
copy of answer sheet in compliance with order, dated 19.08.2011,
passed by the Chief Information Commissioner of the A.P. Information
Commission, as illegal and arbitrary and to direct the respondents to
comply with the said direction of the A.P. Information Commission.
The petitioner appeared for the entrance test for Group-I services in
the year 2008 conducted by the A.P. Public Service Commission (in
short, "APPSC") and failed. The petitioner was given marks list. The
petitioner submitted application to the Secretary of APPSC for supply
of photostat copy of his answer sheet under Right to Information Act,
2005. The said application was rejected. The petitioner filed appeal
before the appellate authority and it was also rejected. Therefore,
the petitioner filed second appeal by way of Appeal No.12618/CIC/2009
before the A.P. Information Commission (in short, "APIC"), Hyderabad.
The Chief Information Commissioner by order, dated 19.08.2011, held
that the petitioner is entitled to seek Photostat copies of answer
sheets from the respondents and directed the respondents to furnish
certified copies of answer sheets to the petitioner free of cost,
within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order.
2. In case the respondents did not comply with the said order
passed by the APIC, then remedy of the petitioner is under Section 20
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the said information
commission. Section 20 of the said Act reads as follows:
"20. Penalties - (1) Where the Central Information
Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at
the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that
the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information
Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause,
refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section
7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two
hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or
information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty
shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the
State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a
reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on
him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted
reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information
Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State
Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding
any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public
Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the
case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently,
failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished
information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section
7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given
incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed
information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any
manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for
disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or
the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the
service rules applicable to him."
3. The Right to Information Act, 2005 is a self-contained
enactment and it provides for stringent measures for enforcement of
the orders of the authorities passed thereunder for providing
information. If the required information is not furnished by the
respondents, then the petitioner instead of approaching the
authorities under Section 20 of the said Act, approached this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution. This Court is not the
executing Court for implementation of the orders passed by various
authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. In the circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed, giving
liberty to the petitioner to approach the proper authority under
Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
_____________________________
SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J
Date: 05.03.2012
ES
