1 APHC010929192018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3328] WEDNESDAY,THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO: 44960 OF 2018 Between: 1.P.S.V. SANJEEVA RAO, S/O. CHIRANJEEVA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, OCC. HEAD ASSISTANT (ACCOUNTS), (RETD.), STATE BANK OF INDIA, R/O. DOOR NO. 16-4-4/3, OPP. SET JUNIOR COLLEGE, GUJARATHIPETA, SRIKAKULAM. ...PETITIONER AND 1.THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, REP. BY ITS CHEF GENERAL MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD. 2.THE GENERAL MANAGER, NET WORK-I AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, AMARAVATHI CIRCLE, GUNFOUNDRY, HYDERABAD. 3.THE CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, PEDDAPADU ROAD, SRIKAKULAM. ...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner: 1.B P RAJU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 2 1.7116 The Court made the following ORAL ORDER: Heard Sri K. Koteswara Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri B.P. Raju, Ld. Counsel for the Writ Petitioner. 2. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 are set ex parte as per the orders of this Court dated 17.09.2025. 3. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking the following relief: “It is therefore prayed in the interest of justice that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action of the 2nd respondent, in rejecting the request made by the petitioner, in respect of not furnishing the information sought by him, vide his letter dated 15.5.2018, under the Appeal made by the petitioner, relating to the service particulars and the date of promotion made to his juniors namely Sri P. Krishna Murthy and others, who were promoted as Officers JMG-I with effect from 1.8.1998, as illegal, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, contrary to law and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and unconstitutional, and consequently direct the 2nd respondent, to furnish the information sought by the petitioner, relating to the particulars of service and the date of promotion made to the juniors of the petitioner namely Sri P. Krishna Murthy and other similarly situated persons, within a stipulated period, as per directions of this Honble Court in W.P. No. 8369 of 2000, dated 6.12.2013, holding that the petitioner is eligible and entitled to be promoted to the post of JMG-I, under the scheme of promotions to the said post, and pass such other order or oders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case, as otherwise, the petitioner herein will be put to irreparable loss and great hardship.” 3 4. The Writ Petitioner, who is aged about 67 years old as on the date of the filing of this Writ Petition seeks information regarding the service particulars of his Junior Officers namely Sri P.Krishna Murthy and others, who were promoted as Junior Management Grade (JMG) – I w.e.f 01.08.1998. The Application has been made to the Central Public Information Officer & Regional Manager, State Bank of India (Respondent No.3) under the Right to Information Act on 04.04.2018. Subsequently, it was rejected by the Respondent No.3 vide Letter bearing No.(3-2) (ADMIN) (F-20/131 dated 18.04.2018 (Ex.P.3). 5. Having suffered the said order of Rejection dated 18.04.2018 (Ex.P.3), the Writ Petitioner has preferred an Appeal under Section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act before the General Manager, Net Work-I & Appellate Authority, State Bank of India (Respondent No.2) and same was rejected by the Respondent No.2. The reason furnished by the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 for rejection of the furnishing information under Right to Information Act, 2005 is that ‘the said information cannot be disclosed since the information relates to the fiduciary capacity which is exempt from disclosure under Right to Information Act, 2005’. 6. On the face of it, it appears that the Writ Petitioner is aged about 67 years as on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition. The Present Writ Petition is filed in the year 2018. By now, the Writ Petitioner would be aged about 74 years. Further, the Writ Petition does not disclose the purpose for which the Writ Petitioner is seeking this information. Without deciding the issue whether the information sought by the Writ Petitioner is the information relating to the fiduciary capacity or not, this Court is of the view that the present Writ Petition has become infructuous inasmuch as no useful purpose would be served in seeking the information of the junior employees after the Petitioner has retired for more than seven (07) years as on the date of filing of the present Writ Petition. 4 7. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. 8. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order. _________________________________ GANNAMANENIRAMAKRISHNA PRASAD, J Dt: 17.09.2025 Mnr 5 130 HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GANNAMANENI RAMAKRISHNA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.44960 OF 2018 Dt: 17.09.2025 Mnr