IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION NO : 4884 of 2008 Between: L. Venkat Rao, S/o. L.S. Patrudu, R/o. 32-101, 75 Feet Road, Visakhapatnam. ..... PETITIONER AND The Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority, Visakhapatnam, Rep. by its Vice Chairman. .....RESPONDENT 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 to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction, more in the nature of Writ of Mandamus delcairng the inaction of the respondent in not considering and furnishing the documents as requested through the representation dated 25-2-2008 by the Petitioner as being illegal, arbitrary and against principles of natural justice and consequently direct the respondent to furnish the same and pass Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.R.N.HEMENDRANATH REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.M.RAVINDRANATH REDDY The Court made the following : ORDER: This writ petition has been instituted seeking a writ of Mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondent-Visakhapatnam Urban Development Authority in considering and furnishing the documents as requested through the representation dated 25-02-2008 by the petitioner. Unfortunately, this writ petition has been instituted on 05-03-2008 itself that is hardly after a week’s time has elapsed after making an application seeking the supply of documents under the Right to Information Act 2005 (for short ‘the Act’). It will be relevant to notice that under Section 6 of the Act, any person, who is desirous to obtain any information under the Act, shall make a request accompanying such fee as may be prescribed therefor and after receipt of such an application, the competent authority shall as expeditiously as possible and in any case within 30 days of the receipt of the request, either provide information on payment of such fee as may be prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. Therefore, the request made by the applicant in terms of Section 6 of the Act has got be considered and if the information sought for is likely to cause prejudice to the larger public interest and for any of the reasons, which have been referred to in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act, such an information can be declined from being supplied. Therefore, the entire exercise has got to be carefully processed by the competent authority and cannot be reduced to a mere mechanical process. Grievance of the petitioner appears to be that certain individuals/institutions, in whose favour a piece of land is said to have been assigned/allotted/permitted by the respondents, have been interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of that very land by the writ petitioner in his own right. Therefore, perhaps, there is certain urgency for the information called for from being furnished. In these set of circumstances, the respondent is directed to take up the application of the petitioner, if it is in full compliance of section 6 of the Act, and deal with it at the earliest, at any rate, within next 15 days and communicate the decision thereon to the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of at the admission stage. No costs. ______________________________ NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO,J Date: 10-03-2008 KLP