HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32997 of 2011 Date:15.12.2011 Between: Seetharamaraju Srinivasa Rao ..... Petitioner And: The District Collector, Krishna District, Chilakalapudi, Machilipatnam And three others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthyt Counsel for the Respondents: GP for Land Acquisition The Court made the following: ORDER: The petitioner who is aggrieved by the non-supply of documents relating to the award, dated 14.01.1975, by respondent Nos.3 and 4 filed this Writ Petition for a Mandamus to declare their inaction in this regard as illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the said respondents to furnish the documents forthwith. I have heard Sri Sai Gangadhar Chamarthy, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. An extent of Ac.2-00 cents of land in R.S.No.160 of Pedavutapalli Village, Unguturu Mandal, Krishna District, belonging to the petitioner’s family was stated to have been acquired under the Award, dated 14.01.1975. When the petitioner approached the Joint Director of Social Welfare, Krishna District, with an application filed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, he has redirected the application to respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 in turn has referred the petitioner to respondent No.4. On the ground that respondent No.4 has not supplied information, the petitioner has approached respondent No.2, who, vide his proceedings, dated 27.06.2011, requested respondent No.4 to look into the matter personally and send information to the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction of respondent No.4 in complying with the direction of respondent No.2, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. At the hearing, learned Government Pleader for Land Acquisition stated that as the award was passed long time back, the office of respondent No.4 does not appear to have the documents relating to the said award on their records. In my opinion, when an application for furnishing information is received, it is the obligation of the officer concerned to respond to the same. The petitioner is being driven from pillar to post for getting the information. If the record was not available, nothing prevented respondent No.4 from saying so by passing an appropriate order. Therefore, the Writ Petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent No.4 to take appropriate steps to comply with the proceedings, dated 27.06.2011, of respondent No.2. If the said proceeding cannot be complied with on account of non-availability of record, he shall communicate the same in writing to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. As a sequel to disposal of the Writ Petition, W.P.M.P.No.41010 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. _____________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 15thDecember 2011 DR