Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Andhra Pradesh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 53509 (AP)

Uppalapati Shakunthala Devi, v. Prl.Secy., Revenue dept., State of A.P.,

WP/5580/2018 · 2025-11-24

Ninala Jayasurya

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

APHC010124902018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA I.A. No.2 of 2018 IN/AND WRIT PETITION No.5580 OF 2018 Between: Uppalapati Shakunthala Devi, W/o late Subhadra Raju, (D/o Pakalapati Ramabhadra Raju), Aged about 80 years, R/o Dwarapudi village, Vizianagaram Mandal and District. ...Petitioner AND 1. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue, Secretariat, Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, and others. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr.Venkateswara Rao Gudapati Counsel for the Respondents: G.P. for Revenue Mr.P.Durga Prasad The Court made the following ORDER: Considering the submissions made and as the application is not opposed, I.A. No.2 of 2018 is allowed. Registry to make necessary incorporations, wherever it is required. 2. Heard Mr.Sailendra, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr.P.Durga Prasad, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader representing the respondent Nos.1 to 3. 2 3. Seeking to declare the action of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in not furnishing the information as required by the petitioner under Right to Information Act and withholding the same as illegal, arbitrary, etc., the present writ petition is filed. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner made representations/applications dated 11.4.2016 and 29.6.2016 to the respondent No.3 seeking the information referred to therein under the Right to Information Act, and in response to the same, the respondent No.3 furnished the information on 30.6.2016, which is not accurate and therefore, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 08.12.2017 to the respondent No.3 seeking to provide the relevant information. He submits that though the petitioner made a representation to respondent No.3 subsequently, there was no response and under those circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file the present writ petition. He also justified in filing the writ petition, referring to paragraph No.7 of the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. 5. On the contrary, learned counsel for respondent No.5, inter alia submits that the present writ petition is misconceived and in fact the petitioner has remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the Right to Information Act and therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. Mr.K.Arjun Chowdary, learned Assistant Government Pleader made submissions by drawing the attention of this Court to paragraph No.6 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent No.3 and contends that the entire information sought for by the petitioner was already furnished and therefore, the contention that the petitioner was not provided with the relevant information, is not tenable. He supports the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent No.5 that the petitioner has remedy of 3 appeal under the Right to Information Act, and he accordingly urges for dismissal of the writ petition. 7. This Court has considered the submissions made and perused the material on record. At the outset, it may be noted that the respondent No.3 filed counter affidavit in the year 2018 and no reply affidavit is filed denying the specific assertions made in the counter affidavit. Be that as it may. 8. This Court, in the light of the submission that the information sought for by the petitioner was already furnished, deems it not necessary to examine the matter in detail. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, however providing that the petitioner may file an application before the concerned authority under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, if she needs any further information. If any such application is filed, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law, after giving due opportunity to respondent Nos.4 and 5. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed. ____________________ NINALA JAYASURYA,J November 25, 2025 vasu