APHC010367972023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WRIT APPEAL No.1046 of 2023 Bench Sr.No:-48 [3446] Rechintala Vema Reddy ...Appellant Vs. The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents ********** Advocate for appellant : Sri P. Rajasekhar representing Sri J.V.Phaniduth Advocate for respondents : Learned Government Pleader for Endowments CORAM : THE CHIEF JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR SRI JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO DATE : 26th February 2026 P C : The present Writ Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 27.06.2023 in Writ Petition No.3453 of 2023. 2. The petition was filed for seeking a writ of mandamus questioning the decision of the official respondents in not furnishing the information by the official respondents sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, “the R.T.I. Act”). 3. The information sought was in regard to a report submitted by One Man Committee appointed in pursuance of G.O.Ms.No.185, Revenue (Endowments-III) Department, dated 21.07.2021. The said application was 2 rejected by respondent No.3, the Public Information – cum – Assistant Secretary to Government, Endowments Department, on the ground that the provisions of Section 8(1)(i) of the R.T.I. Act were attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The aforementioned order of rejection was challenged by the petitioner before the appellate authorities, which too came to be dismissed. The challenge before the learned single Judge in Writ Petition No.3453 of 2023 also did not succeed and hence, the present Writ Appeal. 4. The learned single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, held that there was no procedural irregularity or illegality in the order of rejection passed either by respondent No.3 or the appellate authorities inasmuch as the One Man Committee‟s Report awaits the approval of the cabinet and thus, falls within the exemption contained in Section 8(1)(i) of the R.T.I. Act. 5. On this point, it would be pertinent to reproduce the provision of Section 8(1)(i) of the R.T.I. Act, which envisages as under:- “8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- -- -- (i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reasons thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: 3 Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed.” 6. The issue which falls for consideration by this Court, thus, is whether the report furnished by the One Man Committee of Inquiry would constitute „cabinet papers‟ within the meaning of Section (8)(1)(i) of the R.T.I. Act or not and further as to whether the report submitted by the One Man Committee was at all required to be placed before the cabinet for its decision. In that regard, the official respondents were, on the earlier occasion, by virtue of order dated 26.03.2024, directed to produce the business procedure rules followed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh, which were considered by us in our earlier round during the course of consideration of the issue in this case. 7. Clause 22 in the III Schedule of the Andhra Pradesh Government Business Rules, 2018 (for short, “the Rules”) envisages reports of the Committees/Commissions of Inquiry appointed in pursuance of a resolution of the Council of Ministers or of the State Legislature, which are to be brought before the cabinet except cases covered by sub-Rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules. 8. Clause 22 in the III Schedule of the Rules is reproduced herein:- “22. Committee/Commission reports. Reports of the Committees/Commissions of Inquiry appointed in pursuance of a resolution of the Council of Ministers or of the State Legislature.” 9. Sub-Rule (5) of Rule 12 of the Rules is reproduced herein:- “12. Committees of Cabinet (1)… 4 (2)… (3)… (4)… (5) To the extent, there is a commonality between the cases enumerated in the Fourth Schedule and the cases set out in the column (2) of Third Schedule, the Standing Committees of the Cabinet, shall be competent to take a final decision in the matter except in cases where the relevant entries in the Fourth Schedule or the Third Schedule, preclude the Committees from taking such decisions. (6)… (7)…” 10. One of the issues which also would fall for our consideration in the normal course would be to see as to whether the One Man Committee was appointed in pursuance of the resolution of the Council of Ministers of the State Legislature or not. If the One Man Committee was not so appointed through the said resolution, perhaps, then, it would fall outside the purview of exemption under Section 8(1)(i) of the R.T.I. Act. 11. However, written instructions have been placed before us by the learned counsel for the respondent, wherein it now appears that the report submitted by the One Man Committee constituted by the Government of Andhra Pradesh under the chairmanship of Hon‟ble Justice Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao was not accepted as the Committee‟s recommendations are stated not to have completely taken into account various pronouncements of the Apex Court dated 19.03.1996 in Writ Petition No.638 of 1987. 5 12. It is in those circumstances that the Board recommended by virtue of their Resolution No.454 dated 28.10.2025 to seek constitution of a larger Five Member Committee to holistically examine all issues pertaining to the erstwhile hereditary archaka/sambhavana archakas keeping in view of the orders of the Supreme Court. We are now informed that the Hon‟ble Chief Minister has proposed to constitute a Larger Five Member Committee to examine all these issues as per the written instructions, copy of which has been furnished to us for our perusal and is taken on record. 13. From a reading of the instructions placed before us, it does now appear to be clear that the One Man Committee Report shall not be placed before the cabinet and therefore, cease to be „cabinet papers‟ in regard to which exemption could be claimed by the official respondents in terms of Section 8(1)(i) of the R.T.I. Act. 14. Be that as it may, the appellant would be entitled now to seek a copy of the report submitted by One Man Committee of Justice Dr. B. Siva Sankara Rao. We direct the respondents to furnish the copy of the said report to the appellant through his counsel within four (4) weeks from today. All other issues as noted by us herein above are kept open to be decided in appropriate proceedings. 15. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is disposed of. No costs. 6 Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J AMD 7 128 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE & HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO WRIT APPEAL No.1046 of 2023 Dt : 26.02.2026 AMD