APHC010452922026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 9th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 25143/2026 Between: 1. A RAMANAMMA, W/O A P KONDA REDDY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS OCC HOUSE WIFE R/O H NO 07 SABARI NIVAS TELECOM NAGAR BACK SIDE TO RYTHNAGARAM NANDYAL NANDYAL DISTRICT ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. REGIONAL AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH STATION, REP BY ITS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER NANDYAL ERSTWHILE KURNOOL DISTRICT 518501 2. ACHARYA N G RANGA AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY, REP BY ITS REGISTRAR AND STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER LAM GUNTUR DISTRICT 522034 ...RESPONDENT(S): 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 a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting to provide information under the RTI Act vide Lr.No.3 RTI Section 2025 dated 17.11.2025 on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the information as sought consequent to the letter dated 27.10.2025 of the 1st respondent though the petitioner has submitted the same on 11.11.2025 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently 2 VS,J WP.No.25143 of 2026 declare that the respondents are duty bound to supply the information sought by the petitioner through her representation dated 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025 IA NO: 1 OF 2026 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 direct the Respondents to provide the information as sought by the petitioner through her representations dated 17.9.2025 and 18.9.2025 by suspending the impugned letter No.3/RTI SECTION/2025 dated 17.11.2025 of the 2 nd respondent, pending disposal of the present writ petition Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. VADAPALLI RAMESH Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION 2. S PRANATHI The Court made the following: 3 VS,J WP.No.25143 of 2026 ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief: “....to issue a Writ Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondent No.2 in rejecting to provide information under the RTI Act vide Lr.No.3 RTI Section 2025 dated 17.11.2025 on the ground that the petitioner did not submit the information as sought consequent to the letter dated 27.10.2025 of the 1st respondent though the petitioner has submitted the same on 11.11.2025 as illegal arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and consequently declare that the respondents are duty bound to supply the information sought by the petitioner through her representation dated 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025….” 2. The case of the petitioner is that, pursuant to a notification dated 20.08.2025 issued by the respondent authorities for filling up the vacant post of Teaching Associate in Madakasira Agricultural Polytechnic College, Nandyal, the petitioner’s daughter applied for the same and though she secured highest marks, the respondent authorities have allegedly selected a less meritorious candidate. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner sought relevant information from the 1st respondent under Right to Information Act, 2005 by submitting applications dated 17.09.2025 and 18.09.2025, after paying the requisite fee. The said representations were forwarded to respondent No.2 vide letter dated 19.09.2025, pursuant to which, the respondent No.2 vide memo dated 01.10.2025 directed respondent No.1 to seek information from the university for further scrutiny before sending the reply to the petitioner. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 vide letters dated 17.10.2025 and 4 VS,J WP.No.25143 of 2026 27.10.2025, directed the petitioner to submit details of public interest under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(2) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Upon receipt of the said letter, the petitioner submitted her reply on 11.11.2025 through Registered Post. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner on 11.11.2025, the respondent No.1 vide impugned letter dated 17.11.2025 informed the petitioner that due to non-submission of reply pursuant to the letters dated 17.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, the information sought by her through RTI application cannot be furnished and accordingly, the application was rejected. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent No.2 in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under RTI Act, 2005, the present writ petition is filed. 4. Heard Sri. Vadapalli Ramesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Soumya, learned counsel representing Smt.S. Pranati, learned Standing Counsel for General Administration, appearing for the respondents. 5. Perused the entire material available on record. During the course of arguments, learned Standing Counsel has furnished a copy of the instructions received from the 2nd respondent dated 09.09.2026, wherein the facts stated by the petitioner are admitted. It is further stated that the 1st respondent, vide letter dated 17.10.2025 requested the petitioner to submit the details of ‘Public Interest’ on seeking information under RTI Section 8(1)(j) and 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005. Thereafter, on 27.10.2025, the 1st respondent 5 VS,J WP.No.25143 of 2026 furnished information to the petitioner with regard to point No.1; with regard to point Nos.2 to 7, the petitioner was requested to submit a reply under Section 8(1)(j) and 8(2) of the RTI Act, 2005 as to whether there is any public interest in the application. In the meanwhile, without waiting for the reply from the 1st respondent, the petitioner filed two different appeals (1st appeal) before the 2nd respondent on 22.09.2025 and 23.10.2025; in response, the 2nd respondent, vide the impugned letter dated 17.11.2025 informed the petitioner that as she has not submitted reply to the letters dated 17.10.2025 and 27.10.2025, the 2nd respondent is not in a position to provide information sought by her. Though the respondents herein gave replies to the petitioner as per RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner failed to submit a reply to the letters dated 17.10.2025 and 27.10.2025 under Sections 8(1)(j)(g) and (e) of the RTI Act, 2005. 6. However, it can be seen from the record that, pursuant to the letter addressed by respondent No.1 dated 27.10.2025, the petitioner submitted her reply on 11.11.2025 by way of a registered post, assigning reasons for seeking such information from the respondents. However, on perusal of the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.2025, the reply submitted by the petitioner on 11.11.2025 was not referred. In view of the same, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned proceedings dated 17.11.2025 issued by respondent No.2 are liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned letter addressed by the 2nd respondent dated 17.11.2025 is hereby set-aside. 6 VS,J WP.No.25143 of 2026 Further, the matter is remanded to respondent No.2 for fresh consideration after duly taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner on 11.11.2025 pursuant to the communication dated 27.10.2025, for passing appropriate orders in accordance with law. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 8. Accordingly, the present Writ Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this writ petition shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA Date:09.09.2026 Gss/JS