The Hans India: Warangal: Thursday,
February 16, 2017.
AP State
Information Commission (SIC) served notices to High Court Registrar General and
Warangal Principal District Munsif (PDM) court Public Information Officer (PIO)
to appear before the commission for a hearing for non-furnishing of information
sought under RTI Act 2005.
The Registrar
General, the first appellate authority for RTI petitions under High Court of
judicature for Telangana and Andhra Pradesh and PIO at principal junior
district magistrate court are the respondents in case.
The appellant
is Hanamkonda-based advocate P Veerabhadra Rao. The SIC in the notices served
on February 3 asked both the respondents to be present in person or through
authorised representatives before the commission on Thursday (February 16)
along with files related to the case.
The advocate
is the defendant in the case No OS (original suit) 137/2015 related to a land
dispute under survey numbers 21 and 22 of Brahmanapalli village of Atmakur
mandal in Warangal Rural district.
He filed an application on September 19, 2016
asking the PIO to provide true extract docket orders in full-fledged form of
the case, dates and reasons for adjournments, copy of the petition and number
of the caveats filed by the plaintiff in same schedule of land.
In a reply on
October 3 2016, the PIO told him to obtain the information through e-court
website and also suggested a file a Copy of Application (CA), which is a
judicial procedure.
The
complainant then approached the first appellate authority at High Court asking
the same information.
The appellate
authority also suggested to him to file the CA at the concerned court as per
the judicial proceedings to get the details. Then filed the CA in the PDM on
December 8, 2016 and it was rejected stating the information can’t be provided
as there was no specific reason and there were 50 plus add-outs.
‘Then I
approached the SIC on January 19, 2017 as the PIO and first appellate
authority, HC denied information under RTI Act in connection with OS 137/2015.
It is a fundamental violence in terms of maintaining transparency in legal
proceedings,’ Veerabhadra Rao told The Hans India.
‘I am the
defendant in the case and wanted to know the case status as per the guidelines.
Since the authorities failed to give documentary evidence on what happened
procedurally, I approached the SIC,’ he added.
.JPG)
.JPG)
