Andhra Pradesh High Court
WP/6944/2026 of PYLA SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE Vs THE ANDHRA PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION on 23 March 2026
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3209] TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA WRIT PETITION NO: 6944 OF 2026 Between: 1. PYLA SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED
APHC010121462026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY,THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6944 OF 2026
Between:
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.
1. PYLA SUBHASH CHANDRA BOSE, S/O SATYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/O. D. NO. 10-03-254, THOTA VEEDHI, YELESWARAM, KAKINADA DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-533429.
...PETITIONER AND
1. THE ANDHRA PRADESH INFORMATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, 1ST FLOOR, MGM CAPITAL, CHINNAKAKANI, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH - 522503.
2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, MANGALAGIRI, GUNTUR URBAN DISTRICT ANDHRA PRADESH-522503,
3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ELURU RANGE, ELURU - 534007
4. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KAKINADA, KAKINADA DIST., ANDHRA PRADESH-533003.
5. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRATHIPADU CIRCLE, PRATHIPADU KAKINADA DISTRICT - 533432.
6. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, YELESWARAM, KAKINADA DIST, ANDHRA PRADESH-533432.
7. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, PRATHIPADU POLICE STATION, KAKINADA DIST ANDHRA PRADESH-533432.
8. THE SUBINSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELESWARAM POLICE STATION, KAKINADA DIST, A.P.-533429.
...RESPONDENT(S): Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. CKR ASSOCIATES Represented by Mr.Goli GVS Sai. Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR HOME
2. Mr.K.Giridhar, Advocate representing Mr.K.Ramesh Babu, Standing Counsel for RTI.
The Court made the following ORDER:
The grievance of the petitioner in the present writ petition is non- disposal of the Second Appeal preferred under the provisions of RTI Act.
Seeking the CCTV footages dated 18.09.2025, 19.09.2025, 20.09.2025 and 21.09.2025, recorded in Yeleswaram and Prathipadu Police Stations, the petitioner made an application under the provisions of RTI Act to the Public Information Officer, on 03.11.2025 and since the same did not yield any response, the petitioner filed the First Appeal and the same also did not yield any response, therefore, he filed the Second Appeal before the 1st respondent.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the said Second Appeal is filed on 08.01.2026, so far the same has not been taken up for consideration. He also submits that if the CCTV Footages referred to above are not preserved during the pendency of the Second Appeal, the whole purpose of seeking information under the RTI Act would be rendered futile. He also submits that under the said circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file the present Writ Petition.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader, placed a copy of the instructions dated 24.03.2026, received from the 5th respondent for perusal of this Court and submits that as per the information furnished by the Nodal Officer, Police Control Room, Kakinada, the CC Footage of Prathipadu P.S. is available for 106 days i.e., from 09.12.2025 till date and CCTV Footage of
Yeleswaram P.S., available for 122 days i.e., from 23.11.2025 till date. He submits that in the said circumstances, the request for furnishing the CCTV footage as sought for by the petitioner is not possible.
In the light of the grievance ventilated in the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it not necessary to consider the matter in detail.
The learned counsel representing the 1st respondent on instructions submits that the S.A.No.30 of 2026 filed by the petitioner stands posted for hearing on 06.04.2026.
In view of the submission that the Second Appeal is posted for hearing on 06.04.2026, the Writ Petition is disposed of providing that the 1st respondent shall pass appropriate orders in the said Appeal, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner is at liberty to raise all the issues before the Appellate Authority, including the submission made by the learned Assistant Government Pleader to the effect that furnishing of CCTV footages is not technically feasible.
With the above observation, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No costs.
Consequently, the Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. NINALA JAYASURYA,J Date:24.03.2026 Ssv
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NINALA JAYASURYA
WRIT PETITION NO: 6944 OF 2026 Date:24.03.2026 Ssv