APHC010816772015 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3333] WEDNESDAY, THE 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE V.SUJATHA WRIT PETITION NO: 37525/2015 Between: 1. K.S.GOVINDA RAJAN, OCC: IN-CHARGE-PRINCIPAL, GVR GOVERNMENT COLLEGE OF MUSIC & DANCE, R/O 23-1-2, ACHARI STREET, IF-2, SRI SAI VISHANADHA TOWERS, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA-11. 2. SMT.K.GEETHA LAKSHMI, W/O K.S.GOVINDA RAJAN, OCC: HOUSEWIFE, R/O 23-1-2, ACHARI STREET, IF-2, SRI SAI VISHANADHA TOWERS, SATYANARAYANAPURAM, VIJAYAWADA- 11. ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. THE A P STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, REPRESENTED BY IT'S REGISTRAR, D.NO.5-3-399, SAMACHARA HAKKU BHAVAN, (OLD ACB BUILDING), MOJAM-JAHI-MARKET, HYDERABAD-500 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE & CULTUTE, STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, RAVINDRA BHARATI CAMPUS, KADABHAVAN, SAIFABAD, HYDERABAD-500004. 3. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LANGUAGE & CULTURE, A.P., SECRETARIAT, HYDERABAD-500022. 2 VS,J W.P.No.37525 of 2015 ...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 to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent Order vide Case No.23340/SIC/PVB/2015, dated 21.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent i.e. State Information Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh depriving Fundamental and Legal Rights of the 1st petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discrimionatory, and unconstitutional at the same time violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India in Union of India Vs Namit Sharma, 2013 (10) SCC 359 and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Vs. R.K.Jain and Catena of Cases and to set aside the same, along with all the proceedings issued incidential thereto and in connection therewith the impugned order to set aside the same and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 48269 OF 2015 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 stay operation of the impugned Order vide Case No.23340/SIC-PVB/2015, dated 21.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent pending disposal of the writ petition and pass Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. SANKARA KAUSIK Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR CULTURE 2. KAMBHAMPATI RAMESH BABU( SC FOR AP INFORMATION COMMISSION) The Court made the following: 3 VS,J W.P.No.37525 of 2015 ORDER: This Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following prayer: “…to issue an appropriate Writ order or direction one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent Order vide Case No.23340/SIC/PVB/2015, dated 21.08.2015 issued by the 1st respondent i.e. State Information Commissioner, State of Andhra Pradesh depriving Fundamental and Legal Rights of the 1st petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, discrimionatory, and unconstitutional at the same time violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India besides contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in India in Union of India Vs Namit Sharma, 2013 (10) SCC 359 and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Vs. R.K.Jain and Catena of Cases and to set aside the same, along with all the proceedings issued incidential thereto and in connection therewith the impugned order to set aside the same and to pass…” 2. Brief facts of the case are that the 2nd petitioner (wife of the 1st petitioner) filed a complaint on 22.07.2015 before the 1st respondent, alleging that the information sought by her was not furnished by the office of the 2nd respondent. The information sought by the 2nd petitioner is relating to a third party employee (4th respondent herein) under the Right to Information Act, which had already been supplied in part. The 1st respondent observed that supply of such information is against the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Chief Information 4 VS,J W.P.No.37525 of 2015 Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipur and another1; furthermore, the 1st respondent advised the concerned authorities to transfer the 1st petitioner, who was working as Principal of G.V.R. Government College, Vijayawada to some other district. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed. 3. When the writ petition came up for hearing on 18.11.2015, this Court passed the following interim order: “…Hence, the directions contained in the last paragraph of the impugned order shall remain stayed.” 4. Perused the entire material available on record. Today when the writ petition came up for hearing, learned Standing Counsel for respondents furnished a copy of instructions of the 2nd respondent wherein it is stated that pursuant to the interim orders passed by this Court, the directions of the 1st respondent in the impugned proceedings were not implemented; it is further stated that pending the present petition, the 1st petitioner got retired on 30.11.2024 as Principal of Dr. MBK Government School of Music and Dance, Guntur, upon attaining the age of superannuation. 5. In view of the fact that the respondents have not proceeded further pursuant to the impugned order and as the petitioner got retired on 1 Civil Appeal No.10787-10788 of 2011 5 VS,J W.P.No.37525 of 2015 30.11.2024 upon attaining the age of superannuation, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders are necessary in the present writ petition. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition is closed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Petition shall stand closed. _____________________ JUSTICE V.SUJATHA 16.09.2026 Gss