IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM WRIT PETITION NO : 12741 of 2008 Between: C. Ashiokarathnam S/o. Naganna Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Re. by its Regional Manager, R.R. Mansion, 1-4-609 II Floor, H.L.C. Colony, Anantapur-515 004 2 The Senior Regional Manager & Chief Public Information Officer, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited (L.P.G) 1-4-609, II Floor, H.L.C. Colony, Anantapur-515 004 3 The Executive Director-LPG Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Hindustan Bhavan, 8, Shoorji Vallabhdas Marg Ballard Estate, Munmbai-400 001 .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue an appropriate writ order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in refusing to furnish the information with regard to the HP Gas Distributorship at Nandikotkur, Kurnool District as illegal, arbitrary unjust and contrary to Section 11(1) of the Right of Information Act and consequently direct the respondents herein to forthwith furnish the information sought for by the petitioner pursuant to his application dt. 28-2-2008 and to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.B.NAGI REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: MR.P.V.SANJAY KUMAR The Court made the following : ORDER: The petitioner is aggrieved by the refusal of the respondents in furnishing information with regard to the qualifications of the applicants for H.P.Gas Distributorship at Nandikotkur, Kurnool District. The respondents issued a notification inviting applications from interested candidates for grant of H.P.Gas Distributorship at Nandikotkur. The petitioner was one such applicant. The first respondent-Corporation published a marks list disclosing the list of empanelled candidates on 21.02.2008. Apparently, the petitioner was not in the empanelled list. Alleging illegalities in the recording of marks for empanelment and seeking information as to the particulars furnished by 7 candidates, who had applied along with the petitioner pursuant to the notification, the petitioner submitted a representation on 28.02.2008 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”), to the first respondent. In the representation, the petitioner sought copies of the godown sites documents, showroom sites and financial capacity documents of the 7 candidates, who had been awarded higher marks as per the empanelled list. The second respondent by a letter, dated 29.02.2008, declined to furnish the information on the ground that the information requested by the petitioner was the personal information pertaining to third parties, to be held in confidence by the Company and not liable to be released under the provisions of the Act. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the third respondent on 07.03.2008. The third respondent by a communication, dated 26.03.2008, rejected the appeal on the ground that the information sought relates to third parties and intimated to the petitioner in the said communication that the petitioner had remedy by way of a second appeal to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. Thereafter, the petitioner was informed by a communication of the second respondent, dated 07.04.2008, that the appellate authority, the third respondent had observed that the Corporation may provide information as solicited by the petitioner with the consent of the concerned candidates. The second respondent sought clearance from the 7 candidates as to whether information regarding their particulars could be furnished to the petitioner. 5 of the candidates, except Natesh Kumar Sagaram and Venkateswar Reddy Katha, recorded no objection as to the furnishing of information, while the above two individuals objected to the furnishing of information to the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent informed in the letter, dated 07.04.2008, that the petitioner may deposit the requisite amounts stipulated under the provisions of the Act for furnishing information relating to 5 candidates. The petitioner’s grievance is that the refusal by the respondents to furnish information on the ground that it pertains to third parties is unsustainable under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has a right to a second appeal to the Central Information Commission, New Delhi, a statutory remedy under the provisions of the Act. The Central Information Commission, New Delhi, is an independent Statutory body. Therefore, the petitioner is seen to have an effective alternative remedy against the decision of respondents 2 and 3 declining to furnish the information requested under the provisions of the Act. In the light of the available alternative remedy, this Court is not inclined to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Relegating the petitioner to the available appellate remedy, the Writ Petition is dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. _________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J Dated:19.06.2008 GJ