IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 5165 of 2008 Between: 1 Ch. Shiva Prasad, S/o. Vishwanatham R/o. Flat No.142, Mansarovar Heights, Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad [AP]-500 009. 2 Smt. Jayashree Praveen Deshmukh W/o. Praveen Deshmukh R/o. Flat No.231, Mansarovar Heights, Manovikas Nagar, Secunderabad [AP]-500 009. ..... PETITIONERS AND 1 M/s Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd., A Government of India Enterprise and A Public Limited Company Registered Under Companies Act, 1956 having its Register Office at: 17 Jamshedji Tata Road, Mumbai-400 020. 2 The Deputy General Manager LPG - [South Zone] Thalamuthu- Natrajan Building, 4th Floor, 1 Gandhi Irvin Road, Post Box No.3045, Egmore, Chennai-600 008 [TN]. .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Petitioners:MR.VISHAL SAXENA The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition is filed for the following substantive relief: “For the reasons stated in the affidavit hereinabove, the petitioner herein prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to call for records from the respondents pertaining to the issues raised herein above and any other matter that may be touching upon the issues raised in this petition and issue necessary direction, order or writ; more appropriately one in the nature of a WRIT OF MANDAMUS; and “Declare refusal of Respondents herein to make public necessary criteria/credentials of each and every candidate who appeared for interview on 08.02.2008 at Respondents’ Regional Office at Cherlapally, Hyderabad (AP) for allotment of LPG Distributorship at (a) Balanagar-Bowenpally Road, Vikasnagar, Hyderabad (AP) and (b) Karkhana Secunderabad, Hyderabad (AP), as being contrary to principles of Fairness in the Governmental Dealing / Equality of opportunity and offending Fundamental Rights of the petitioner herein guaranteed under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and therefore ULTRA VIRES”. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record, I am of the view that this writ petition cannot be entertained for the reason that the petitioners have a number of remedies available under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). If the petitioners feel aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in supplying information sought for by them, they are entitled to file appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act and a Second Appeal lies under sub-section 3 of Section 19 of the Act against any order passed in appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act. Ordinarily, this Court will not entertain writ petitions where a person has got effective alternative remedies (See Baburam Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad, Muzaffarnagar [1], Harbans Lal Sahnia v. Indian Oil Corporation Limited [2], Secretary, U.P.High School & Intermediate Education, Allahabad v. H.K.Lal [3]). Since the petitioners have not given any reasons to make departure from this rule, this writ petition is dismissed with liberty to them to avail the above-mentioned remedies. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP.No.6709 of 2008 filed by the petitioners for interim relief is also dismissed. C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 13th MARCH, 2008 kvni [1] AIR 1969 SC 556 [2] 2003(2) SCC 107 [3] (2007) 2 SCC 216