Boddupalli Shankaraiah vs The State Information Commission
2026 Latest Caselaw 315 Tel

Telangana High Court

Boddupalli Shankaraiah vs The State Information Commission on 2 April, 2026

Author: Surepalli Nanda

Bench: Surepalli Nanda

 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
                AT HYDERABAD

      HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

            WRIT PETITION No.9843 OF 2026

                   DATE: 02.04.2026

Between :

Boddupalli Shankaraiah
                                          ...      Petitioner
     And

The State Information Commission
represented by its Information Commissioner,
SamacharaHaku Bhavan, Behind Mojamjahi Market,
Hyderabad and others
                                      ...        Respondents

                         ORDER

Heard Sri R. Lakshmi Narsimha Rao, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the

learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Information Technology appearing on behalf of the

respondents.

2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking

prayer as under:

SN,J W.P.No.9843 of 2026

"...to issue Writ, Order or Direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the order in Complaint No. 6915/ SIC- MP/2022 dated 29.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No.1, Telangana State Information Commission , Hyderabad as arbitrary , illegal and unjust and voilative of Article 19 (1) (a) of Constitution of India and consequently set aside the same and direct the Respondent No. 1 to consider the Complaint No. 6915/SIC-MP/2022 afresh in accordance with law after giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing him by duly serving notice of hearing of the case on the petitioner and pass..."

3. The case of the petitioner in brief as per the

averments made in the affidavit filed by the petitioner

in support of the present Writ Petition is as under:-

i) The petitioner filed an application dated 23.03.2022

under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005

before Respondent No.2 seeking information regarding the

status of the petitioner's job proposal dated 15.09.2008 for

appointment on compassionate grounds. However, the said

information was not furnished.

SN,J

ii) Aggrieved by the inaction, the petitioner preferred an

appeal under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act before

Respondent No.1. Due to non-appointment of

commissioners, the matter remained pending for a

considerable time.

iii) Subsequently, Respondent No.1 passed an order

dated 29.08.2025 without issuing notice to the petitioner or

providing an opportunity of hearing, which was

communicated on 08.01.2026 to the petitioner. Aggrieved

by the same, the petitioner approached this Court by filing

the present writ petition.

PERUSED THE RECORD:

A) The relevant portion of the order passed by the

Telangana Information Commission dated 29.08.2025

in the Complaint No.6915/SIC-MP/2022, is extracted

hereunder:

"The Complaint was taken on file and notices were issued to both the parties for hearing on 29-08-2025.

SN,J

The case is called on 29-08-2025. The Complainant is absent. The Public Information Officer is absent.

The Assistant Public Information Officer is present and filed an affidavit stating that vide letter No. SE/OP/KNR/DE(T)/PO/JAO(L&RTI)/S2/PIO- 559/D.No.209/23 dated 27-04-2023 sought information was furnished to the complainant which was received from the Divisional Engineer/MRT/Karimnagar through letter dated 20-01-2023.

Heard the Assistant Public Information Officer and perused the records.

As the sought information was furnished, the complaint is closed."

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner mainly puts forth the following

submissions:

4.1 Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

submits that, in response to the appeal filed by the

petitioner under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 before

the Telangana Information Commission, Hyderabad against

the public authority, a notice dated 19.08.2025 in Case

SN,J

No.6915/SIC-MP/2022 was issued by the office of the

Telangana Information Commission, Hyderabad, calling

upon the petitioner to appear in person before the

Commission at 10:30 a.m. on 29th August, 2025, at Court

Hall No.2, Room No. GF-5, Ground Floor, along with certain

documents.

4.2 The said notice was received by the petitioner on

03.09.2025, however, without providing any reasonable

opportunity to the petitioner, the impugned order, dated

29.08.2025 was passed by Respondent No.1.

4.3 On 29.08.2025, the complaint was closed, recording the

absence of the petitioner, without providing him an

opportunity of hearing. The petitioner was not heard before

the passing of the impugned order, and the complaint dated

18.05.2022 of the petitioner was closed by Respondent No.1

behind his back.

Based on the aforesaid submissions, learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner

contends that the petitioner is entitled for the relief

as prayed for in the present writ petition.

SN,J

5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Information

and Technology, appearing on behalf of the respondents,

does not dispute the fact that the notice dated 19.08.2025

issued by Respondent No.1 Commission, calling upon the

petitioner to appear before it on 29.08.2025, was received

by the petitioner on 03.09.2025.

6. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION:

a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of

the case,

b) The submissions made by the learned

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the

learned Assistant Government Pleader for

Information and Technology appearing on behalf of

the respondents,

c) The notice dated 19.08.2025 issued by the

Commission in Case No.6915/SIC-MP/2022,

d) The order impugned dated 29.08.2025

passed in complaint No.6915/SIC-MP/2022,

SN,J

e) The fact that the petitioner was denied a

reasonable opportunity of hearing on the complaint

dated 18.05.2022 filed under Section 18(1) of the RTI

Act, 2005 before Respondent No.1.

f) The fact that the notice dated 19.08.2025

had been received by the petitioner only on

03.09.2025,

g) The discussion and conclusion as arrived at

paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the present order,

The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order

dated 29.08.2025 passed by Respondent No.1 closing

the complaint dated 18.05.2025, is set aside and the

matter is remitted back to the respondent No.1 herein

to reconsider the complaint dated 18.05.2025 filed by

the petitioner herein before the Commission, in

accordance to law, within a period of three (3) weeks

from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and

duly communicate the decision to the petitioner

herein. There shall be no order as to costs.

SN,J

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ

Petition, shall stand closed.

___________________________ MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLI NANDA

Date: 02.04.2026 LPD