THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY + Writ Petition Nos.3207 of 2009 % 19-02-2009 Between: Sri A.Sudhakar Reddy …Petitioner And The A.P. State Information Commission and and others. …Respondents ! Counsel for Petitioner : Sri A.Sudhakar Reddy < Gist: > Head Note: ? CITATIONS: THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.3207 of 2009 ORDER: The petitioner is a Medical Practitioner. He filed an application dated 25-03-2008 before the Public Information Officer (Municipal Manager), Jagtial Municipality, the 3rd respondent herein, with a request to furnish certain information. Alleging that the 3rd respondent did not furnish the information within the time stipulated under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) the petitioner filed an appeal before the 2nd respondent, on 26-06-2008. He states that the 2nd respondent also did not take any action in the matter. Therefore, he filed a further appeal before the 1st respondent, under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. This writ petition is filed with a prayer to declare the action of the respondents in not furnishing the information, sought for by the petitioner, in his representation dated 23-05-2008. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Parliament does not appear to have anticipated the level to which, the Act would be misused. A clause contained in the Act, that an individual shall not be required to state the purpose for which the information is prayed for is required, became handy for many, who have leisure time at their disposal, to take various Government and Public Authorities for a ride. The application submitted by the petitioner on 23-05-2008 contains six paragraphs. All possible questions, in relation to Ac.3.05 guntas of land in Sy.No.465 of Mottesivar, Ashoknagar, Jagtial, were shooted. The petitioner thought that by paying Rs.10/-, under the Act, he can command the Municipality, at his disposal. It is not even remotely evident as to why the petitioner wanted that information, much less, that he has any grievance about the various acts and omissions, mentioned in the application. For instance, he named 18 persons, in paragraph-6 of the application, and wanted the Information Officer to state, as to how many of them are in possession and enjoyment of the land in Sy.No.465. Obviously, the respondents 2 and 3 are caught up in a tangle. If they furnish the information, according to their knowledge and assumption, it amounts to exercising powers, not conferred upon them. The reason is that it is only the Revenue Authorities under the relevant provision of law, or the Courts, that can certify or pronounce upon the possession of the individuals over the land. If they do not furnish the said information, it amounts to violation of the sacred rights, vested in the petitioner, under the Act. They have chosen a safe course, to remain silent. For all practical purposes, the petitioner treated the respondents 2 and 3, as his subordinates, if not, servants, to blindly obey, all his directions. This Court is of the view that the petitioner has resorted to gross misuse of the provisions of the Act; and no relief can be granted to him. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.19-02-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Mark L.R. copy. KO