D.K.NARAYANA RAO Vs. STATE OF TELANGANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Writ Petition, the petitioner is seeking a Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of respondents 4, 5 and 6 in denying supply of the copy of the registered sale deed No.1782 of 1954 vide impugned letter No.Cr/R5/1483/DD/2022/1882 dt.21/7/2022 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently to direct respondents 4, 5 and 6 to issue/supply the copy of the sale deed vide Document No.1782 of 1954 dt.21/10/1954 which was obtained by them during the enquiry from respondents 5 and 7 and to pass such other order or orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition are that the petitioner had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in the year 2018 for supply of the copy of the sale deed No.1782 of 1954 and when the same was not furnished, the petitioner approached the State Information Commission and pursuant to a direction of the State Information Commission dt.27/9/2021, respondent No.5 replied on 11/1/2022 stating the information, i.e., documents pertaining to the file vide No.82/Layout/1982, Sakkubainagar Society sought for by the petitioner related to more than 20 years old and due to renovation of the office premises, the entire office records were shifted to Buddha Bhavan and after verification of records, they were was not found in the records. It was further submitted that it is not possible to provide the same since the records related to more than 20 years old. The petitioner approached other respondents also, but in vain. Subsequently, the petitioner filed an application before respondent No.2 on 6/6/2022 and the said respondent vide letter dt.18/6/2022 had intimated to the petitioner that his application had been forwarded to the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad under Sec. 6(3) of the RTI Act with a request to furnish the required information directly to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not receive any information. Thereafter, the petitioner applied before respondent No.3 and the said respondent also replied vide Memo No.8016/Plg.III/2022 dt.18/6/2022 and thereafter, respondent No.4 issued a letter dt.21/7/2022 stating that the information is exempted under Sec. 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence his application is rejected. Challenging the said letter, the present Writ Petition is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the documents that the petitioner has sought are public documents and therefore the provisions of Sec. 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 dealing with information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identity of the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes, are not applicable to the case on hand. He further submitted that respondent No.4 has already obtained the copies from respondents 6 and 7 and it is in the custody of respondent No.4. He is therefore seeking a direction to the respondent No.4 to furnish the copy of the sale deed No.1784 of 1954 and other documents sought for by the petitioner to the petitioner.