Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Narne Rahul Dev vs Andhra Pradesh Information Commission on 15 September, 2025
1
APHC010046332024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3328]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
MONDAY,THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA
PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO: 27731 OF 2024
Between:
1.NARNE RAHUL DEV, S/O SITARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 45,OCC.
PVT INSTRUCTOR, R/O D-NO 6-2, GANGAVARAM ROAD, INKOLLU-
523167, A.P.
...PETITIONER
AND
1.ANDHRA PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION, Rep by Chief
Information Commissioner,1st floor MGM Capital,
Chinnakakani,Mangalagiri, Guntur District-522503
...RESPONDENT
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1.PARTY IN PERSON
Counsel for the Respondent:
1.P RAVIKANTH
The Court made the following ORAL ORDER:
Heard Sri N. Rahul Dev, Party in Person for the Writ Petitioner and Sri P.Ravikanth, Ld. Counsel for the Respondent.
22. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief:
"It is hereby prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the inaction of the respondent in taking cognizance of the offences committed by the PIO & the FAA by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and violative of articles 14, 19 of Constitution of India besides being violative of the Principles of Natural Justice, Consequently directing the respondent to provide a hearing to the petitioner's Non-compliance request 4294/2023 at the earliest, and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, just and proper in the circumstances of the Case"
3. The Affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition would indicate that the Writ Petitioner has sought certain documents from the Public Information Officer. It is his case that the required information has not been provided by the Public Information Officer, essentially the Petitioner was concerned about certain encroachments which have taken place in Survey No. 389 of Inkollu Village, Bapatla District. It is his case that the land in Survey No.389 is a Drainage Canal originally with a width of 33 feet and the same had been significantly reduced to nearly 3 feet by the encroachers and that the said drainage is crucial for facilitating the discharge of the water. In order to make out a case against the encroachers, the Writ Petitioner has approached the Public Information Officer, Panchayat Raj Department for seeking certain documents. For the reason that the documents that were sought by the Writ Petitioner were not provided to him under the Right to Information Act, the Writ Petitioner has filed the Statutory Appeal. Thereafter, another Appeal was filed by the Writ Petitioner before the Information Commissioner under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act. The Public Information Officer has disposed of the Appeal with certain directions to the Public Information Officer.
34. It is the grievance of the Writ Petitioner that despite the directions having been rendered by the Commissioner to the Public Information Officer, the Public Information Officer has not complied with the same. It is also his case that the Public Information Officer has fabricated certain documents and have supplied such documents to the Writ Petitioner.
5. In this view of the matter, the Writ Petitioner is challenging the inaction of the Respondent in taking cognizance of the offences committed by the Public Information Officer and the FAA by not providing an opportunity of hearing to the Writ Petitioner.
6. It is the contention of Sri Ravikanth, Ld. Counsel appearing for the Respondent that when once the Commissioner has passed the Final Order in the Appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act, such Commissioner becomes 'Functus Officio' and would not be permitted under the statute to either reopen or rehear the matter by providing an opportunity to the Writ Petitioner herein.
7. On the conceptus of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the goal with which the Petitioner has sought information under the Right to Information Act i.e., to curb the encroachments had been lost by the Writ Petitioner somewhere and had started a 'wild goose chase' against the Officers complaining of inaction, one after the other, at every stage. If the issue is regarding the encroachment of public land, the Writ Petitioner would have had the most effective and efficacious remedy by filing a Writ Petition against the encroachments, which the Writ Court would have effectively dealt with.
8. In this view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition. However, liberty is given to the Writ Petitioner to file an appropriate Writ Petition challenging the encroachments, if he is so advised.
9. With these observations and directions, this Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs.
410. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.
_________________________________ GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 15.09.2025 Mnr 5 92 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.27731 OF 2024 Dt: 15.09.2025 Mnr