Telangana High Court
WP/34543/2011 of B. Venu Gopal Reddy Vs The State Public Inofrmation Officer, on 29 December 2011
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.34543 of 2011 Date: 29.12.2011 Between: B.Venu Gopal Reddy ..... Petitioner AND The State Public Information Officer, Hyderabad and another. .....Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kummathi Venkatesulu Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.34543 of 2011
Between:
Date: 29.12.2011
B.Venu Gopal Reddy
AND
..... Petitioner
The State Public Information Officer,Hyderabad and another.
.....Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri Kummathi Venkatesulu Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following:
ORDER:
Feeling aggrieved by non-furnishing of partinformation relating to allotment of house under AndhraPradesh Rajiv Swagruha Scheme in Anantapur town, thepetitioner filed this Writ Petition.
From the averments made in the affidavit, filed insupport of the Writ Petition, it is evident that against theorder of respondent No.2 refusing to furnish part-information, the petitioner filed First Appeal beforerespondent No.1 who has confirmed the order ofrespondent No.2.
At the hearing, it is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioner that against the order ofrespondent No.1 passed in the first appeal, a secondappeal lies to the State Information Commissioner underSection 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
In view of the availability of an efficacious alternativeremedy, this Court is not inclined to entertain this WritPetition at this stage.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, withoutgoing into the merits of the case, with liberty to the petitionerto avail the above-mentioned alternative remedy.
As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition,W.P.M.P.No.42979 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interimrelief is dismissed as infructuous.
__________________________
C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J29[th] December 2011DR