THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY Writ Petition No.1192 of 2009 ORDER: In the recent past, the Right to Information Act (for short ‘the Act’) has become very handy for certain vested interests, to breach the privacy of others, and thereby, causing harassment and hardship to them. The attempt made by the petitioner appears to be once such. The petitioner is a resident of Kakinada. The 3rd respondent is a Ward Member of S.Atchutapuram Gram Panchayat of Kakinada Rural Mandal. The petitioner submitted an application under the Act, to the Tahsildar, Kakinada Rural, with a request to furnish the copy of declaration submitted by the 4th respondent, for issuance of White Ration Card. The request was acceded to, and the declaration form, submitted by the 4th respondent, was furnished. In that, the income was shown as, Rs.18,000/-, per year. Thereafter, the petitioner accelerated his efforts against the 4th respondent, and insisted that the latter must be prosecuted. The basis was that, the 4th respondent was enrolled as an Advocate; residing in a house by paying rent of Rs.1,500/-, per month; his children are studying in a convent school, for which the expenditure is bound to be Rs.6,000/- to Rs.7,000/- per month, and in that view of the matter, issuance of White Ration Card is totally untenable. This writ petition is filed alleging that the Revenue Divisional Officer, the 3rd respondent, has not taken any action on the representation dated 05-09-2008. Heard Sri N.V. Anantha Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned Government Pleader for Revenue. The petitioner had assumed to himself, several facts vis-à-vis the 4th respondent. Hardly there was any material, that reflected the income of the 4th respondent. It is not as if the petitioner is running a movement, to ensure transparency at every level. The whole effort appears to be, to settle the personal scores with the 4th respondent. At any rate, the petitioner must have stopped with bringing the relevant facts to the notice of the concerned authority. Beyond a point, it becomes a case of personal vandetta. Nothing is placed before this Court to prove that the 4th respondent has misled the Authorities, or that he has committed fraud. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ Dt.29-01-2009. L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. KO