Times of India: Vijayawada: Tuesday, 6Th
October 2026.
The Andhra Pradesh
Information Commission has barred an RTI applicant from filing repetitive
applications, appeals or complaints on matters already disposed of or where the
required information has been furnished, citing misuse of the transparency law
and avoidable diversion of public resources.
Chief information commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao issued the order while disposing of a batch of 164 cases involving Yadala Bhadraiah of Palnadu district. The commission noted that Bhadraiah had filed more than 1,000 RTI applications and over 300 second appeals.
The commission observed that the cases reflected a recurring pattern of seeking repeated opportunities for inspection of records without pointing to specific deficiencies in the information already supplied. It held that the RTI Act cannot be used to repeatedly pursue matters that have already been addressed.
The commission also took note of a ₹10,000 PhonePe transaction allegedly made to Bhadraiah from an account linked to a deputy MPDO while official proceedings were pending. It directed the commissioner and director of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to investigate the transaction and examine whether any violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act had occurred.
The commission further directed the Palnadu district collector to verify Bhadraiah’s eligibility for a white ration card in view of information indicating that he owned two houses and substantial landholdings. Appropriate action was ordered if any irregularity or fraudulent claim was established.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the commission observed that the RTI Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability and cannot be allowed to become a means of harassing public officials or pursuing personal grievances.
It said repeated and vexatious proceedings could consume considerable administrative time and manpower, affecting the ability of public authorities to respond to genuine RTI applicants.
Rao dismissed the batch of 164 cases and directed that future applications from Bhadraiah should be confined to genuinely distinct requests for information and should not repeat matters that have already been answered or adjudicated.
“This commission is of the considered view that this is a fit case to prohibit the appellant from filing applications, appeals, and complaints under the RTI Act, 2005. The commission deems it appropriate to reprimand the appellant, Yadala Bhadraiah, and cautions him to refrain from conduct that may amount to harassment. It is further clarified that any repetition of such conduct may invite appropriate action, including rejection of future applications, appeals, or complaints, in the larger public interest and in furtherance of the objectives of the RTI Act, 2005,” said Vajja Srinivasa Rao.
Chief information commissioner Vajja Srinivasa Rao issued the order while disposing of a batch of 164 cases involving Yadala Bhadraiah of Palnadu district. The commission noted that Bhadraiah had filed more than 1,000 RTI applications and over 300 second appeals.
The commission observed that the cases reflected a recurring pattern of seeking repeated opportunities for inspection of records without pointing to specific deficiencies in the information already supplied. It held that the RTI Act cannot be used to repeatedly pursue matters that have already been addressed.
The commission also took note of a ₹10,000 PhonePe transaction allegedly made to Bhadraiah from an account linked to a deputy MPDO while official proceedings were pending. It directed the commissioner and director of Panchayat Raj and Rural Development to investigate the transaction and examine whether any violation of the Prevention of Corruption Act had occurred.
The commission further directed the Palnadu district collector to verify Bhadraiah’s eligibility for a white ration card in view of information indicating that he owned two houses and substantial landholdings. Appropriate action was ordered if any irregularity or fraudulent claim was established.
Referring to Supreme Court judgments, the commission observed that the RTI Act is intended to promote transparency and accountability and cannot be allowed to become a means of harassing public officials or pursuing personal grievances.
It said repeated and vexatious proceedings could consume considerable administrative time and manpower, affecting the ability of public authorities to respond to genuine RTI applicants.
Rao dismissed the batch of 164 cases and directed that future applications from Bhadraiah should be confined to genuinely distinct requests for information and should not repeat matters that have already been answered or adjudicated.
“This commission is of the considered view that this is a fit case to prohibit the appellant from filing applications, appeals, and complaints under the RTI Act, 2005. The commission deems it appropriate to reprimand the appellant, Yadala Bhadraiah, and cautions him to refrain from conduct that may amount to harassment. It is further clarified that any repetition of such conduct may invite appropriate action, including rejection of future applications, appeals, or complaints, in the larger public interest and in furtherance of the objectives of the RTI Act, 2005,” said Vajja Srinivasa Rao.
.JPG)
.JPG)
