/¥*,ss IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH :: AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30786 OF 2024 Between: Chinnam Anjaneyulu, S/o Venkateswara Rao, aged 51 years, Occ Inspector of Police, R/o beside High School, Ubalanka, Ravulapalem Mandal, E.G.,(Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema) District. ...Petitioner AND 1. The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by its Principle Secretary Home Department, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. 2. The Public Information Officer, inspector General of Police Services), DGP Office, Mangalagiri, Gurtur District. 3. The Superintendent of Police, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema Amalapuram. (Technical District, at 4. The Additional Superintendent of Police, (Admin and Public Information Officer) O/o Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical Services AP., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 5. The State Information Commissioner, AP Information Commission Floor, MGM Capital, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. 6. The Station House Officer, Ravulapalem Police Station, Ravulapalem Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. , 1st ...Respondents Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondent in not providing the information sought by the petitioner through application dated 08-07-2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and also violation of Art. 14, 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India, apart from the clear violation of Provisions of RTI Act, consequently to direct the respondents to provide the information to the petitioner to the application dated 08-07-2024. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to provide the information to the petitioner to the application dated 08-07-2024 pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI. PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4 & 6: GP FOR HOME The Court made the following order: APHC010586572024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) SM0 [3329] MONDAY ,THE SIXTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30786/2024 Between: Chinnam Anjaneyulu ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT{S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.PALLA BALU ANIL KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent{S): 1.GP FOR HOME The Court made the following: 2 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VENKATESWARLU NIMMAGADDA WRIT PETITION NO: 30786/2024 ORDER: This writ petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India seeking the following reliefs:- “to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not providing the information sought by the petitioner through application dated 08.07.2024 is highly illegal, arbitrary, apart from violation of the principles of natural justice and also violation of Articles 14, 19 (1)(g) of Constitution of India, apart from the clear violation of provisions of RTI Act, consequently to direct the respondents to provide the information to the petitioner to the application dated 08.07.2024 and pass such other order." 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner submitted his application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the 6'^ respondent herein seeking information regarding the CC TV footage on 25.05.2024 covered in SHO, Ravulapalem UPS. The 6*^ respondent herein passed an impugned order stating that the information sought by the petitioner cannot be parted, since an offence is under investigation. Therefore, the request of the petitioner comes under the category of Section 8(h) of the Act i.e., exemption from disclosure of information. As such, the information sought by the petitioner cannot be parted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this Court as well as Hon’ble Apex Court from time and again are directing the Information Officers/Appellate Authority to part the information whichever is available regarding the CC footage m respect of any instance/occurrence said to have been taken place beyond date well as in a particular place. But contrary to the principle set down by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the respondent authorities as erroneously rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground of Section 8(h) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, learned Government Pleader submits that the subject offence is under investigation and the information sought by the petitioner squarely covered under Section 8(h) of the Act. Therefore, the 6‘^ respondent rightly issued the impugned endorsement stating that the information sought by the petitioner cannot be parted in view of Section 8(h) of the Act. He further submits that any proceedings issued under Section 6(1) of the Act, the petitioner is entitled by way of statutory appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the 4*'' respondent herein. But without availing the effective statutory alternative invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore remedy, the petitioner the petitioner must 4 approach the appellate authority, in view of the statutory alternative remedy. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Government Pleader for the respondents and on perusal of the material placed on record, it appears that Section 8(h) of the Act contemplates exemptions from disclosure of information as requested under Section 6 of the Act. It is further observed that Section 8(h) of the Act, empowers the authority to not to part the information if the information sought by the informant would impede investigation process. \ l \ 7. For better understanding Section 8(h) of the Act, is extracted hereunder; “8. Exemption from disclosure of information.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen:- (h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders;" 8. It is further observed that the information sought by the petitioner i.e., providing CC footage of the particular date and place comes under the definition of Section 8(h) of the Act or not, should be decided by the Statutory Appellate Authority, who is the competent/statutory authority to deal with claim of the petitioner. In view of the same, this Court is of the considered view that the 5 present Writ Petition can be disposed of directing the petitioner herein to prefer an appeal before the 4"" respondent within a period of two(2) weeks from today. Upon such submission, the 4 respondent is directed to pass orders within the period as specified and communicate the same to the petitioner in accordance with law. th 9. With the above direction, this Writ Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel miscellaneous application, pending, if any, shall also stand closed. Sd/- M. SRINIVAS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To, The Principle Secretary Home Department, State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Guntur District. The Public Information Officer, inspector General of Police (Technical Services), DGP Office, Mangalagiri, Gurtur District. The Superintendent of Police, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District, at Amalapuram. The Additional Superintendent of Police, (Admin and Public Information Officer) O/o Deputy Inspector General of Police, Technical Services, AP., Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The State Information Commissioner, AP Information Commission, 1st Floor, MGM Capital, Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur District. The Station House Officer, Ravulapalem Police Station, Ravulapalem, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Konaseema District. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. One CC to Sri. Palla Balu Anil Kumar Advocate [OPUC] 8. Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court Of Andhra Pradesh. [OUT] 9. Three CD Copies GSC HIGH COURT DATED:06/01/2025 ORDER WP.No.30786 of 2024 DISPOSING OF THE WP WITHOUT COSTS