IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL, TWO THOUSAND EIGHT ONLY PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.544 of 2008 Between: B. Ramesh … Petitioner AND The Public Relation Officer/Administrative Officer, Police Recruitment Board, Govt., of A.P., Lakidikapool, Hyderabad & others. … Respondents Counsel for the petitioner : Sri D. Goverdhana Chary Counsel for respondents 1&2: AGP for Home Counsel for respondent No.3 : Smt. Ch. Veda Vani This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.544 of 2008 ORDER:- This writ petition is filed for a writ of mandamus to declare the action of the respondents in not furnishing the documents, namely, (1) Cut-off marks of 30% open to all zonal and communal roster and also 70% local with communal roster, (2) xerox copies of applications OMR Sheet forms in order of priority (Civil SIs – Men) among the selected candidates, and (3) Xerox copies of OMR answer sheets, Paper-I and Paper-II along with answer key ABCD Paper-I and Paper-II of selected candidates (Civil SIs – Men) including question papers, as illegal and arbitrary. At the hearing, Sri D. Goverdhana Chary, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the State Level Police Recruitment Board did not comply with the petitioner’s request for furnishing certain documents, he filed an appeal before the first appellate authority, namely, Public Information Officer, Inspector General of Police, Recruitment State Level Police Recruitment Board, Government of A.P. and as no orders were passed thereon, he filed a further appeal before respondent No.3 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the appeal was received on 13.12.2007, so far, no orders have been passed thereon. Smt. Ch. Vedavani, learned counsel representing respondent No.3, on instructions, submitted that the petitioner’s second appeal was disposed of by respondent No.3 in the month of December, 2007 itself with appropriate directions. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of. If the second appeal is already disposed of as submitted by the learned counsel in favour of the petitioner, he will not have any grievance. If the appeal is not disposed of, respondent No.3 is directed to dispose of the same. If the petitioner is aggrieved by any order passed by respondent No.3, he shall be at liberty to question the same in accordance with law. As a sequel to disposal of the writ petition, WPMP.No.614 of 2008 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 08.04.2008 ES