Telangana High Court
Govind Raju Sami vs The State Of Telangana on 21 March, 2025
Author: Nagesh Bheemapaka
Bench: Nagesh Bheemapaka
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA
WRIT PETITION No. 15868 OF 2024
O R D E R:
Petitioner is aggrieved by the denial of respondents
to furnish the report given by DSP, Vigilance Department, based
on his complaint dated 05-05-2021, acknowledged on
10-05-2021, regarding M/s Bollywood Chilles. He therefore,
seeks a direction in this regard.
2. Petitioner is stated to have submitted complaint
dated 05.05.2021 to the Director General, State Vigilance
Department and APSFC officials for the illegal acts committed
by APSFC officers namely C. Nagarjuna, General Manger, Mr.
Kumar, Branch Manager, Mr. Chaluvaji Jagdishwar Rao,
Mr. Soma Swaroopkanth (building owner) and auction
purchasers namely G. Sanjay Kuamr, G. Sridhar and G. Veera
Pratap Chakravarthy for their illegal acts and criminal offences
in respect of M/s Bollywood Chillies established by petitioner
along with his wife and other partners in the leased facilities
bearing Door No.1-7-1069, RTC X Roads, Chikkadpally,
Hyderabad, as per registered lease deeds Nos. 544/2010 to
551/2010. Accordingly, the DSP, Vigilance Department gave
report. Petitioner thereafter, filed an Application under the Right
to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'the Act'), dated 31.05.2021
before the Principal Secretary for Industries and Commerce and
the Commissioner of Industries to furnish the report given by
DSP, Vigilance Department , but on 13.02.2024, the same was
denied in view of Section 8(1)(h) of the Act. The Appeal before
the Principal Secretary of the Industries and Commerce
Department on 12-03-2024 (posted through registered mail on
14-03-2024), was also rejected on 27-03-2024. Therefore,
petitioner approached this Court.
It is stated that in similar circumstances, in Writ
Petition No. 33468 of 2022, by order darted 16.10.2022, this
Court observed that Section 8(1)(g) of the Act applies only to
such information, disclosure of which would endanger the life or
physical safety of any person and directed the 4th respondent
therein to furnish the copy sought by petitioner.
In the counter filed on behalf of the 2nd respondent,
it is stated, petitioner requested details of the report prepared by
the Vigilance Department and sought information on any action
taken against the APSFC officials in connection with these
allegations. It is stated, the General Administration (Vigilance &
Enforcement) Department conducted inquiry into the allegations
made against APSFC officials. The inquiry focused on
irregularities regarding the business operations of
M/s Bollywood Chillies Restaurant and purchase of movable
property. Subsequently, Vigilance Report bearing No. 53, dated
21.05.2022, was submitted. The report contained specific
findings and recommendations related to the alleged
misconduct of the implicated parties.
Based on the recommendations, the Vice Chairman and
Managing Director of Andhra Pradesh State Finance
Corporation (Telangana Division) was instructed to take action
as per the Corporation's Regulations. These proceedings are
currently under examination and ongoing. It is stated, the
information requested by petitioner was denied on the ground of
confidentiality, through Government Letter dated 13.02.2024,
invoking Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, which provision exempts
disclosure of information if it could impede the process of
ongoing investigation or prosecution of offenders. The same
rationale was communicated to petitioner in response to his
Application. The Appeal filed thereagainst was also rejected.
According to the 2nd respondent, Vigilance Report
No. 53, dated 21.05.2022, contains sensitive and confidential
information, disclosing of which would undermine the integrity
of the investigation and any subsequent action against the
accused officers of the Andhra Pradesh State Finance
Corporation. Therefore, respondents assert that refusal to
furnish the requested information is valid and in compliance
with the provisions of the RTI Act. This respondent informs that
departmental proceedings against the accused officers of APSFC
(Telangana Division) are underway, as recommended by the
Vigilance Report. These proceedings are being conducted as per
the rules and regulations of the Corporation and in line with the
recommendations of the Vigilance & Enforcement Department.
3. Petitioner filed reply asserting that he has been
subjected to corruption and illegal acts by APSFC officials,
leading to significant financial losses. Despite APSFC charging
18% interest on loan, he does not have possession of his
property, which remains under the control of the premises
owners. He contends that loan, initially Rs. 13 lacs in 2012, has
ballooned to several crores due to the negligence and collusion
of APSFC officials. He emphasizes that had APSFC acted
promptly when the account became a Non-Performing Asset
(NPA), his financial situation would not have deteriorated.
Petitioner contends that the matter does not involve
public interest and the report pertains to his complaint about
the suffering caused by collusive and criminal acts. He argues
that withholding the report defeats the purpose of the RTI Act,
which aims to promote transparency and accountability.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner Sri Burgula John
Dinakar relies on the judgment in Bhagat Singh Vs Chief
Information Commissioner 1, wherein it has been held that
Section 8 of the RTI Act should be strictly construed as it
imposes a restriction on the fundamental right to information.
He argues that mere existence of an investigation cannot justify
denial of information and that public authority must provide
cogent reasons to demonstrate how disclosure would impede the
investigation or prosecution. Since, in this case, no such
justification has been provided, his personal interest outweighs
any potential harm from disclosure. He further submits that
withholding information in this case undermines the objectives
of the RTI Act.
146(2008)DLT385
5. Heard Sri M. Hamsa Raj, learned Standing Counsel
for APSFC.
6. The Act aims to ensure transparency and
accountability in governance. Section 8(1)(h) provides exemption
from disclosure if it would impede investigation or prosecution.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagat Singh's case (supra)
emphasized that exemption under Section 8 must be strictly
construed and authorities must demonstrate how disclosure
would harm investigative processes. In the present case,
respondents have not substantiated how such disclosure would
impede the investigation or prosecution. Furthermore,
petitioner's claims of procedural lapses by APSFC, including
unauthorized asset sales and irregularities in auction processes,
raise serious concerns of corruption and mal-administration
and Vigilance Report is crucial for substantiating these claims,
which directly impact financial and legal interests of petitioner.
Denial of the report without adequate justification undermines
the transparency and objectives of the Act itself.
7. The order dated 26-10-2022 in Writ Petition
No.33468 of 2022 relied on by petitioner is not applicable to this
case since in the said Writ Petition dealt with Section 8(1)(g) of
the Act which applies to such information, disclosure of which
would endanger the life or physical safety of any person. Here,
in the instant case, the information was denied under Section
8(1)(h). However, as discussed supra, petitioner's allegations
pertain to corruption and procedural lapses, the information
sought cannot be denied on the ground of confidentiality. He
also provided prima facie evidence of collusion and negligence by
APSFC officials and access to Vigilance Report is essential for
pursuing remedies and ensuring accountability. Denying such
access would impede petitioner's ability to seek justice and
contradict the purpose of the Act. Petitioner's right to
information under the RTI Act coupled with the principles of
transparency and accountability, outweighs the respondents'
unsubstantiated claims of investigative impediment. The
Vigilance Report is a critical document for addressing the
petitioner's grievances and ensuring justice. In the light of the
same, the Writ Petition deserves to be allowed.
8. The Writ Petition is therefore, allowed.
Respondents are directed to furnish the information sought to
petitioner within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of
this order. No costs.
9. Consequently, the miscellaneous Applications, if
any shall stand closed.
-------- -----------------------------
NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J
21st March 2025
ksld
