Nalabotu Purmaiah v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.85 of 2016 ORDER:

Heard.

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned communication of the 3rd respondent, dated 03-08-2015, whereunder the petitioner was only informed by way of communication to submit details, which are required to be furnished to the 5th respondent under the Right to Information Act. I am unable to see how the said communication decides any right for or against the petitioner. The communication states that at the request of the 5th respondent seeking information under the Right to Information Act, which the Tahsildar and the Revenue Divisional Officer are obliged to furnish and for that purpose, the 3rd respondent requested the petitioner to furnish details.

In any case, the petitioner has given a detailed reply to the 4th respondent on 13-10-2015 referring to the civil proceedings already pending before a competent civil court apart from pendency of W.P.No.37171 of 2013. Respondents 3 and 4 shall therefore act on the said information and deal with the right of the 5th respondent under the Right to Information Act accordingly. So far as the petitioner is concerned, the impugned communication does not amount to any adverse order. Hence, no reasons exist to entertain the writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed. _______________________ VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR, J Date: 05-01-2016 Prv

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V.AFZULPURKAR W.P.No.85 of 2016 05-01-2016 Prv