The Hon'ble Sri Justice C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy Writ Petition No.28276 of 2011 Date: 2nd November, 2011 Between: Addanki Narasimha Nagaraju ..... Petitioner and 1.The Joint Director of Agriculture, Ongole, Prakasam District, and 3 others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari Counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2: GP for Agriculture Counsel for respondent No.3: --- The Court made the following : O R D E R: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1, in entertaining appeal, dated 05-09-2011, of respondent No.3 without hearing the petitioner’s objections, as illegal and arbitrary. Respondent No.3 has approached respondent No.2- Assistant Director of Agriculture, Ongole, Prakasam District, with an application, dated 16-08- 2011, seeking to furnish information relating to the petitioner, who is working as Senior Assistant in the Office of respondent No.2. The said application was rejected by respondent No.2 on the ground that the same is exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). Questioning the said Order, respondent No.3 filed a statutory appeal before respondent No.1. The petitioner pleaded that the said appeal is pending and he apprehends that there is a likelihood of respondent No.1 allowing the appeal of respondent No.3. The petitioner desires that before the appeal is disposed of by respondent No.1, he be heard. At the hearing Smt.Chintalapudi Lakshmi Kumari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has fairly conceded that there is no provision under the Act, requiring the appellate authority to give a notice to the person, whose details are sought by the appellant. She submitted that some of the information sought for by respondent No.3 pertains to the personal details of the petitioner, which are exempted under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. In the absence of any statutory provision, the appellate authority has no obligation to hear the petitioner before passing any order. Respondent No.1, being the appellate authority, is expected to examine the provisions under the Act and take a decision in accordance therewith by declining to furnish information, if the same falls under the exempted category under Section 8 (1) (j) of the Act. As the petitioner is not provided with a right of hearing under the Act, the relief claimed in this Writ Petition cannot be granted. Subject to the observations made herein above, the Writ Petition is dismissed. As a sequel, WPMP.No.34915 of 2011, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ______________________ (C.V.Nagarjuna Reddy, J) 2nd November, 2011 LUR