Central Information Commission
Aouf Bin Sayeed Bin Siddiq vs Telangana High Court on 8 August, 2025
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/TLHCH/C/2024/641284
Shri Aouf Bin Sayeed Bin Siddiq निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Telangana High Court
Date of Hearing : 06.08.2025
Date of Decision : 06.08.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 22.12.2022
PIO replied on : - -
First Appeal filed on : - -
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 16.10.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 22.12.2022 seeking information on following points:-
"1. Judicial Actions and Legal Recourse:
- The immediate judicial actions a judge can take upon discovering a false affidavit or statement during a hearing.
- Protocols for judges to report or handle such instances.
- Legal recourse available to the High Court against parties filing false affidavits.
- Possibility of initiating contempt proceedings or referring cases to investigative agencies.
2. Relevant Judgments and Legal Consequences:
- Landmark judgments from the High Court of Telangana setting a precedent for handling false affidavits, including case numbers and summaries.
- Legal consequences for individuals filing false affidavits or statements.
3. Rules, Regulations, and Preventive Measures:
Page 1
- Specific rules and regulations governing affidavit submission and addressing falsification.
- Measures employed by the High Court to prevent false affidavits or statements
4. Guidelines, Protocols, and Case Studies:
- Guidelines or protocols followed by the High Court upon discovering a false affidavit.
- Case references and outcomes of recent matters involving false affidavits, especially any involving officials from Maheshwaram MRO."
Dissatisfied with the non-receipt of information received from the CPIO, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint. Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Not present Respondent: Mr K.V. Raman, Standing Counsel - Representative of the PIO. Mr. K. V. Raman stated that the Complainant has filed the instant Complaint without filing any first appeal. He affirmed to furnish a reply in reference to the instant RTI Application in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Commission, after perusal of case records and submissions made during hearing, expresses severe displeasure over the conduct of the PIO in not having provided any reply to the RTI Application within the time frame stipulated under the RTI Act. Commission further observes that the PIO has not provided any reply even at this stage after receipt of hearing notice of the instant Complaint. Therefore, Commission directs the concerned PIO to send his/her written submissions to justify aforesaid gross violation of the provisions of RTI Act failing which an action under Section 20(1) and 20(2) of the RTI Act will be initiated against him/her, if necessary. The said written submission of then PIO along with submissions of other concerned persons, if any, should reach the Commission within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. No further action lies.
Page 2 The Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)