Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Padala Sailendra vs High Court Of Judicature At ... on 29 July, 2022
Author: M.Ganga Rao
Bench: M. Ganga Rao
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO.11246 OF 2015
ORDER:
This writ petition is filed for the following relief:
"...to issue a writ or an order, more particularly one in the nature of a Writ of Mandamus declaring the order of the 2nd respondent in Appeal No.235/2014 Dt.20.412.2014 as illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law and consequently set aside the same and direct the 3rd and 4th respondent to furnish the original sale deed dated 24.10.1988 filed in O.S.No.23/2003 or furnish the certified copy of the same and pass such other orders..."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made an application to the Assistant Public Information Officer-cum-Administrative Officer, Principal District Court, under the RTI Act, to furnish the original or certified copy of the sale deed dated 24-10-1988. The said officer, on 23-12-2013, sent an endorsement directing the family members of the petitioners to make an application before the Administrative Officer cum SAPIO, III Additional District Court, Kakinada, for the required information. Accordingly, one of the petitioner's family members made an application dt.23-06-2014 to the Administrative Officer cum SAPIO, III Additional District Court, Kakinada, requesting to furnish the sale deed dated 24-10-1988 and paid the necessary charges. The Administrative Officer cum SAPIO, III Additional District Court, Kakinada addressed a letter on 01-07-2014 to cause transmission of the information sought by the petitioner and his family members so that the same can be communicated on or before 11-07-2014. Again, on 22-07-2014, Administrative Officer 2 cum SAPIO, III Additional District Court, Kakinada addressed a letter to the IV Additional District Judge, Kakinada, requesting him to comply with the RTI application of the petitioner and his family members. The 3rd respondent by order Dt.09-09-2014 rejected the application on the ground that separate procedure is contemplated in Civil Rules of Practice for supply of certified copies of documents to third parties and the RTI Act does not apply. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner filed appeal before the 2nd respondent and the 2nd respondent rejected the appeal on the ground that the appeal is filed by the petitioner's uncle before the 2nd respondent, but not by the applicant. The petitioner and his family members are being deprived of their valuable document by the action of the 3rd and 4th respondents in retaining the same and not furnishing any details. They are not in a position to either mortgage the property or sell the property to any third party. The rejection of the appeal by the 2nd respondent on the ground that the applicant who filed the original application did not file the appeal is illegal, arbitrary, capricious and contrary to law.
Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the record, this court in the interests of the justice felt it appropriate to dispose of the Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner being aggrieved person (who filed the application before the 3 rd respondent) to file appeal against the order dated 09-09-2014 of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent, appellate Authority shall 3 consider appeal filed by the petitioner on its own merits without reference to any delay in filing the appeal.
Accordingly, Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.
______________ M.GANGA RAO, J Date:29.07.2022 VTS 4 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. GANGA RAO WRIT PETITION NO.11246 OF 2015 WRIT PETITION NO.11246 OF 2015 29.07.2022 VTS