THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12649 of 2009 (Dated : 30-08-2010) Between: R.Subhashini W/o Babu Ravindranaga, Kadapa …Petitioner A n d The General Manager, Telecom District , BSNL, Kadapa and another …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12649 of 2009 ORDER: This writ petition has been taken out by R.Subhashini seeking a mandamus declaring the action of the General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Kadapa in rejecting to give information sought for under the Right to Information Act, 2005 as illegal, arbitrary and consequently to direct the Deputy General Manager (Admn.), Telecom District, BSNL, Kadapa-2nd respondent to furnish information sought for by her in the application dated 22.01.2009. 2. One Smt. D.Noorjahan was appointed in the office of the Deputy General Manager (Admn.), Kadapa-2nd respondent on compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband D.Babaiah, a lineman in B.S.N.L., died while in service. According to the petitioner, Smt. Noorrjahan obtained employment on compassionate grounds by producing false certificates. The petitioner sought for copies of the certificates produced by Smt. Noorjahan at the time of her appointment on compassionate grounds under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act’). The 2nd respondent refused to supply the information sought for on the ground that disclosure of such information may cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of third parties, vide letter No.GMTD/KDP/RTI/2008-09/4, dated 3.2.2009. Assailing the order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner filed appeal before the General Manager, Telecom District, BSNL, Kadapa. The appellate authority also refused to furnish information sought for by the petitioner on the ground that the disclosure of the same may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of third person, vide letter No.GMTD/KDP/RTI/2008-09/6, Dated 11.03.2009. Hence, this writ petition assailing the order of the primary authority as well as the appellate authority. 3. Notice before admission came to be ordered on 29.6.2009. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel and filed counter. One M.Sambasiva Rao, Assistant General Manager (Legal) has sworn to the counter affidavit. It is stated in the counter affidavit that Smt. D.Noorjahan W/o late Babaiah has been appointed as Attender in the office of the 2nd respondent on compassionate grounds. The petitioner submitted application dated 22.01.2009 seeking certified copies of certain documents furnished by Smt. D.Noorjahan at the time of her appointment. The request of the petitioner has been rejected under Section 8(1)(j) of the Right to Information Act. There is a dispute between the petitioner and Smt. D.Noorjahan, who is the wife of D.Babaiah. It is further stated in the counter that the petitioner can avail the remedy of second appeal under Section 19(3) before the Central Information Commission and as the petitioner failed to avail the remedy of appeal, she cannot be permitted to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For better appreciation, I may refer paras 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit, which read as hereunder:- “ 5.In reply Para No.6,it is submitted that there is provision for 2nd appeal under Section 19 Clause-3, wherein it has been mentioned that 2nd appeal can be filed against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie (within 90 days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received) with the Central Information Commissioner. Whereas the petitioner has not ceased the channels available to her in the Act and filed the instant Writ Petition intentionally to harass the respondents as well as Smt. D.Noorjahan, W/o late Babaiah. 6.In reply to Para No.7 it is further submitted that no Court shall entertain any suit/application or other proceedings in respect of any order made under this Act as per the provisions made under section 23 of Right to Information Act. As such, the petitioner has to make 2nd appeal to the Central Information Commission on the decision of CPIO. The information sought by the petitioner pertains to 3rd party, the disclosure of which may cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the third person. Also it is not associated with any public activity or interest. As such the petitioner may be directed to file 2nd appeal to the appropriate authority as per the provisions made under the Section 19(3).” 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that refusal of the respondent to furnish information sought for by referring to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act is unjustified in the given facts and circumstances of the case. Learned counsel took me to Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, which reads as hereunder:- “8: Exemption from disclosure of information:- Not withstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,------ 8(1)(j): information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information”: 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 submits that the petitioner has efficacious remedy of 2nd appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act, and therefore, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not justified. 7. Section 19 of the Act deals with Appeal provisions. Indisputably, a second appeal is provided for under sub-section (3) of Section 19 against the order impugned in the writ petition. Section 19(3) reads as hereunder:- 19(3): A second appeal against the decision under sub- section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission. Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.” 8. When 2nd appeal is provided for under the Act, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner is at liberty to avail the remedy of 2nd appeal as provided under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. Reserving said liberty; the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.30-08-2010 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Writ Petition No.12649 of 2009 (Dated : 30-08-2010)