Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Elaprolu Sitaramanjaneyulu vs The Union Of India on 29 July, 2024
APHC010308202024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3329]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA
WRIT PETITION NO: 15534/2024
Between:
Elaprolu Sitaramanjaneyulu ...PETITIONER
AND
The Union Of India and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. G JHANSI Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. JUPUDI V K YAGNADUTT(CENTRAL GOVERNMENT COUNSEL) The Court made the following Order:
The present writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking following relief:
"...may be pleased to pass an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the inaction of the Respondent No.3 in refusing to furnish information pertaining to the Aadhar Card Registration No.8422 1552 4835, which was obtained by impersonating me by an unknown person alleged to be a resident of D.No.8-4-6612, F-201, Ratna Priya Enclave, Prasanthi Nagar, Peda Waltair, Visakhapatnam-17 and also the details inter alia to whom the said Aadhaar card belongs, where it was prepared, including the thumb impression of the person claiming the 2 Aadhaar Card vide my offline RTI Application Dy.No.303/2024, dated 04.01.2024 vide its reply notice vide Proceedings No.RO-HYD- 27013/3/2024/RTI/(E-13573) dated: 01.02.2024 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the Respondent No.3 to provide the information as sought by me in the RTI Application Dy. No.303/2024 dated 04.01.2024 and pass such..."
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the absolute owner and possessor of the land in Sy.No.156/1, 157/11 to an extent of Ac.1-99.5 cents of Saripalli Village, Pendurthi Mandal, Visakhapatnam District, having acquired the same through a registered sale deed bearing No. document No.4645 of 2002, dated 10.10.2002. Since then, the petitioner is in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the subject property and the petitioner's name was mutated in the revenue records as pattadar and he was issued pattadar passbook bearing No.227693 in Khata No.569.
4. While things stood thus, by way of impersonation, respondent No.4 had alleged to have acquired the subject property through a separate registered sale deeds vide document Nos.4077 of 2021 and document No.4078 of 2021, dated 07.07.2021 at the office of Joint Sub Registrar from an alleged/ impersonated person (under the name & style of the petitioner).
5. He further submits that, in view of said act of the impersonation, the petitioner approached the Pendurthi Police Station, Visakhapatnam City on 3 13.07.2021 and lodged a complaint against the impersonator on the ground that, he was impersonated and his documents were forged.
6. Pursuant to the petitioner's complaint, the police registered FIR and the same was numbered as FIR. No. 430 of 2021, dated 13.07.2021 against the unknown person along with respondent No.4 and others under Sections 419, 468 and 471 of IPC, r/w. Section 34 and filed charge sheet with Cr.No.430 of 2021, which was numbered as C.C.No.6570 of 2024 on the file of VII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Visakhapatnam, wherein the contents of the charge sheet are extracted here as under:
"In the meanwhile, LW2 gave requisition to L.W.19 alleging that one of the accused by name EelaproluSeetharamanjuneyulu, age 37 yrs, Aadhaar No.842215524835, PhoneNo.8790202561, PanNo.OGSPS5851M,D.No.8-4-66/2,F-201, Ratnapriya Enclave, Prasanthi Nagar, PedaWaltair, Visakhapatnam city, who is acted as a original land owner ElaproluSeetharamanjaneyulu S/o.late Ramachandrayya, age 77 years, R/o.D.No.1-2-22-/BAE/407, HyderNagar, Opp.Charmas, Kukatpally, TirumalaGiri, Hyderabad, Telangana State-500085, Ph.8522044414, Aadhaar No.7998 7140 8349, is not charged as he was not traced and requested for further investigation in this case alleging that he is the main culprit for the alleged crimes."
7. Learned counsel further submits that, in view of the registration of FIR vide No.430 of 2021 by the Pendurthi Police, the petitioner filed a suit vide O.S.No.174 of 2021 on the file of the IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam seeking declaration of two sale deeds executed by the aforesaid impersonator in favor of respondent No.4, vide Doc.No.4078/2021 (Ac.1085 Cents) and Doc.No.4077/2021 (14.50 Cents) dated 07.07.2021. So far either the Investigation Officers or respondents No.2 have not provided any particulars about the said impersonator. Learned counsel for the petitioner 4 further relied upon the judgment passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in CRL.M.C.987/2023, dated 03.05.2024. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted hereunder:
"5. Section 33(1) of the Aadhar Act empowers this Court to order disclosure of information including the identity information or authentication records of the Aadhar Cardholder. It is further submitted that the information sought by the investigation agency falls within the ambit of „identity information‟ as defined in Section 2(n) of the Aadhar Act."
"Learned APP for the petitioner states that the information as sought from the UIDAI is crucial for the proper investigation and adjudication of the present case and that ends of justice would be served by ensuring that such information is provided. He further states that the disclosure of such information in no manner whatsoever amounts to an invasion of the right to privacy of the card holder."
" 6. Considering the facts of the present petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that justice would be served if the information as sought by the petitioner is provided. Consequently, the petition is allowed and the respondent NO.1 authority is directed to provide all the relevant information qua the Aadhar Number mentioned in the letter No.3099/R/ACP/Special Cell/NDR/Lodhi Colony, New Delhi dated 20.04.2022 addressed to Director, UIDAI, as per the provisions of the Aadhar Act."
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that, by considering the claim of the petitioner and the contents in the judgment which is extracted above, the petitioner is entitled for relief as sought for.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents furnished a copy of written instructions, dated 26.07.2024. The relevant portions of the written instructions are usefully extracted hereunder:
"With regard to Para 2, it is submitted that, the Petitioner vide an offline RTI Application Dy.No.303/2024 dated: 04.01.2024 has requested Respondent No.3 to furnish information relating to Aadhar Card bearing No.xxxx xxxx 4835. Subsequently, Respondent No.3 vide office Letter No.RO-HYD- 27013/3/2024/RTI/(E-13573) dated 01.02.2024 informed the Petitioner that necessary action has been initiated by the answering Respondent as per UIDAI Guidelines. However, the information 5 requested by the Petitioner pertains to third party and cannot be shared as per Section 8(1) (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
In accordance with the Regulation 28 (1) (c) & (f) of the Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulations, 2016, the Aadhaar number of an Aadhaar number holder shall be de- activated if it is found at a later stage that enrolment has been carried out without valid supporting documents, the Aadhaar number shall be de-activated till it is updated by the Aadhaar number holder after furnishing valid supporting documents.
Further, in accordance with the Regulation 29 (1) of The Aadhaar (Enrolment and Update) Regulation,2016, any case reported or identified as a possible case requiring omission or de-activation may require field inquiry which may include hearing the persons whose Aadhaar number is sought to be omitted or de-activated."
10. In view of the Rules and Regulations mentioned above, the respondent Nos.2 & 3 are under the statutory obligation to serve the notice to the parties, only after such complaints, the information can be furnished pursuant to the directions of this Court.
11. Having regard to the submissions made by both the learned counsel and on perusal of the statutory provisions mentioned above and after gone through the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that, this Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the respondent Nos.2 & 3 to consider the request/claim of the petitioner and issue notice to un-official respondent No.4 herein and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner as well as to un-official respondent No.4 and respondent Nos.2 & 3 shall dispose of the claim/representation of the petitioner within a period of four (04) weeks after serving the notice.
6
12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no orders as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.
______________________________________ VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA, J 29.07.2024 SCH 7 250 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO.15534 of 2024 Dated:29.07.2024 SCH