Regulagadda Vijaya Bhaskar, v. The Additional Director General Of Police,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR WRIT PETITION No. 17696 of 2016 ORDER:

The present application came to be filed seeking a direction to the first respondent to furnish documents sought vide representation dated 15.03.2016, made by the petitioner to the first respondent. The petitioner is the husband of the third respondent. The third respondent herein filed M.C.No.18 of 2011 before a competent Court at Palakollu, seeking maintenance of Rs.5,000/- per month. The said case is till pending consideration before the said Court. While things stood thus, the petitioner is alleged to have made an application before the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department, requesting the authorities to furnish information about his wife. According to him, the third respondent has left to Dubai while the maintenance case is pending. It is also stated that the information which is sought for in the representation is very much necessary for adjudication of the case. Hence, the petitioner sought for relevant documents mentioned in the said representation.

It is to be noted that the representation made by the petitioner to the Additional Director General of Police, Crime Investigation Department is not an application made under Right to Information Act. Such being the position, the question of furnishing all the documents and information as sought for by the petitioner namely passport number, place and date of issuance of passport, type of visa on which she went for Dubai, in which airport she landed in Dubai and through which travel agent and his address, her phone number which she gave to the travel agent and who accompanied her, whether she directly approached the travel agent or through any

other person, which airlines she went for Dubai, date and time, whether really her aunt sent her the visit visa from Dubai or she purchased that visa from the travel agent, would not arise. Hence, I see no reason to direct the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner seeking the information referred to above.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. However, if the petitioner is entitled for the said information under Right to Information Act, he can make so, in which event, the same shall be dealt with, in accordance with law.

Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed in the light of this final order. No order as to costs. ______________________ JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR 07.06.2016, vhb