IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 658 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 23/04/2009 in WP NO : 8425 OF 2009 on the file of the High Court.) Between: B.Devarajulu, S/o. B. Kalappa, M.P.P.School, Kempasamudram, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Information Officer, O/o. the District Educational Officer, Chittoor District, Chittoor, 2 The District Educational Officer, Chittoor District, Chittoor, .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellant: MR.K.RAMAMOHAN- MAHADEVA Counsel for the Respondents: GP FOR SCHOOL EDUCATION The Division Bench of this Court made the following : Judgment follows 2nd page THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 658 of 2009 J U D G M E N T : (Per the Hon’ble Smt. Justice T. Meena Kumari) The writ appeal is filed against order dated 23-4-2009 passed in WP.No. 8425 of 2009 by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition by observing that the appellant-writ petitioner did not mention as to what exactly the grievance is and he felt aggrieved that he was not selected, the information sought for by him is totally irrelevant for his grievance. The learned single Judge also observed that the appellant-writ petitioner being a person, who is supposed to be an ideal citizen and example for his students cannot be permitted to take his superior for a ride, through irrelevant and irresponsible application and also while being a secondary teacher under the control and administration of the second respondent, the appellant-writ petitioner and his colleagues behaved in a very irresponsible manner. 2. The main writ petition is filed seeking to declare the action of the respondents in not furnishing the information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with regard to the couselling conducted to the teachers for promotion to the post of School Assistants (Physical Science), through the legal notice, dated 6-3-2009, as illegal, improper and violative of the provisions of the Act, and consequently direct the respondents to furnish information sought for by the petitioner through the legal notice, dated 6-3-2009, and also direct the respondents to pay the penalty to the petitioner as provided under Section 20 of the Act. 3. The facts of the case are that the appellant is working as a Secondary Grade Teacher in MPP School at Kempasamudram, Ramakuppam Mandal, Chittoor district. The District Selection Committee has taken up promotions to the posts of School Assistants. The appellant was disqualified on the ground that the certificate held by him is not from a recognized institution. The appellant and seven other teachers got issued a notice dated 06-3-2009 to the second respondent through their Advocate, seeking to furnish information on certain aspects. The grievance of the appellant is that the second respondent did not comply with that request. 3. Sri K.Ramamohan Mahadeva, the learned counsel representing the appellant-writ petitioner seeks to contend that the number of persons, who got promotion through counseling have produced bogus certificates obtained from various Universities and the appellant and others who made representation to the authorities are qualified and eligible for getting promotion, however, some other persons were given promotion basing on the bogus certificate produced by them ignoring the cases of the appellant and others. The learned counsel contended that the authorities have to furnish the information within a period of thirty days after the receipt of such request and either they have to provide the information on payment of prescribed fee or reject the request by giving sufficient reasons. Further the appellant and others have sent a legal notice on 06-34-2009 and the same was received by the authorities on 09-3-2009 and the time stipulated for furnishing the information under the Right to Information Act expired by 06-4-2009 but the respondents have not complied with the same. Therefore, the learned single Judge ought to have considered the request of the appellant by directing the authorities to furnish the information sought for by the appellant under the Act, instead of dismissing the writ petition, which is contrary to the provisions of the Act. Now the grievance of the appellant is that the second respondent has not complied with his request and the inaction on the part of the second respondent amounts to violation of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader for School Education, it appears that the appellant-writ petitioner sought to furnish the information, as to what are the fake certificates given by the candidates for promotion; how many were traced out till today; what is the method adopted to trace out the fake and bogus certificates etc. In addition to the above, the appellant wanted the second respondent to furnish the above information, for which the learned single Judge also rejected the said request because instances of misuse of the facility provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are on the rise and the learned single Judge also of the opinion that persons, who have spare time at their disposal, are feeling that, they can make any authorities under the Act to bow before them. Thus, we are of the opinion that the learned single Judge has rightly observed that the writ petition filed by the appellant is an example of making any authorities under the Act to bow before them. We are not inclined to interfere with the order impugned in this writ appeal. But however, liberty is granted to the appellant to avail the remedies available to him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in a proper manner but not in a vague, general and uncertain manner. 5. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. No costs. ______________________ JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI ____________________ JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR 02-6-2009. I s L