TELANGANA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

(Under Right to Information Act, 2005)

Samachara Hakku Bhavan, D.No.5-4-399, ‘4’ Storied Commercial Complex,
Housing Board Building, Mojam Jahi Market, Hyderabad – 500 001.
Phone Nos: 040-24740665 (o); 040-24740592(f)

Appeal Nos.69, 120, 225, 227, 599, 600, 809, 810, 836, 838,1265,11716,11717 /SIC-KSR/2021
Complaints Nos.119 &13827-2021
Dated: 28-04-2022
Appellant/Complainant : Sri S. Bhanu Shankar Rao, Hyderabad-500114.

Respondents : 1.The Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005) /

O/o. the Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal,
Ranga Reddy District-500019.

2.The Public Information Officer (U/RTI Act, 2005) /

O/o. the Revenue Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division,
Attapur, Pillar No. 167, Ranga Reddy District-500030.

The Appellate Authority (U/RTI Act, 2005) /

O/o. the Collector, Ranga Reddy District.,
Lakidikapool, Hyderabad-500004.

ORDER

I C
Sri S. Bhanu Shankar Rao, Hyderabad-500114 has filed multiple appeals which were received by
this Commission several dates for not getting the information sought by him from the PIO-1/ O/o. the
Tahsildar, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy District-500019 and PIO-2 / O/o. the Revenue
Divisional Officer, Rajendranagar Division, Attapur, Pillar No. 167, Ranga Reddy District-500030 and 1st

S
Appellate Authority / O/o. the Collector, Ranga Reddy District., Lakidikapool, Hyderabad-500004.

The brief facts of the case as per the appeals and other records received along with it are that the

T
appellant herein filed an applications dated 07-10-2020, 01-10-2020, 09-10-2020, 10-10-2020,
14-10-2020, 12-10-2020, 16-03-2021 before the PIO under Sec.6(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, requesting to
furnish the information u/s.19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005.

The Public Information Officer has not furnished the information to the appellant.

Since the appellant did not receive the information from the Public Information Officer, he filed
st
1 appeals dated 24-11-2020, 06-11-2020, 26-11-2020, 02-12-2020, 08-12-2020, 06-12-2020, 27-07-2021
before the 1st Appellate Authorities u/s 19(1) of the RTI Act, 2005 requesting him to furnish the
information sought by him.

The 1st Appellate Authority failed to hear the case and pass appropriate orders on the 1st appeal
filed before him.

As the appellant did not get the information from the Public Information Officer / 1st Appellate
Authorities even after 30 days of filing his 1st appeals, he preferred these 2nd appeals before this
Commission u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 requesting to take action against the PIO and 1st Appellate
Authority for not furnishing information sought by him and also to arrange to furnish the information
sought by him.

The Appeals was taken on file and the cases are posted for hearing on 28-04-2022.

The cases are called on 28-04-2022. The representative of the appellant is present. The Public
Information Officer-1/ Sri G.Shanker, Naib Tahsildar Serilingampally Mandal is present. The Public
Information Officer-2 is absent. Sri J. Srikanth, Junior Assistant is present on behalf of the Public
Information Officer. The First Appellate Authority is absent.

Since the appellant/complainant, Public Information Officer and the subject matter of these cases
are one and the same, these cases are clubbed together and a common order is passed.
P.T.O

Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required

 ::2::

The representative of the appellant submitted that he has not received the sought information from
the Public Information Officer.

The representative of the Public Information Officer-2 submitted that the application was
transferred u/s. 6(3) of the RTI Act, 2005 to the Public Information Officer-1/ O/o. The Tahsildar,
Seriligampally Mandal for furnishing the sought information.

The Public Information Officer-1 submitted that the appellant is seeking the same information
repeatedly with multiple applications and informed the appellant for inspection of records.

On perusal of the material papers available on record, the Commission takes note of the fact that
the appellant/complainant has filed multiple RTI application on the same subject which is nothing but
misusing the RTI Act and thus wasting the precious time of the Public Information Officer, First
Appellate Authority and the Commission. Therefore the Commission warns the appellant/complainant to
restrict himself to one application on one subject instead of filing several applications.

Even a single repetition of RTI application would demand the valuable time of the Public
Information Officer, first appellate authority and if it also reaches second appeal, that of the Commission,
which time could have been spent to hear another appeal or answer another application or perform other
public duty. Every repetition of RTI application which was earlier responded will be an obstruction of
flow of information and defeats the purpose of the RTI Act.

The appellant/complainant is advised not to file multiple RTI applications and the public authority
is authorized to reject applications with identical subject matter heard and disposed by this Commission

C
earlier.

I
The Commission directs the Public Information Officer to invite the appellant/complainant for
personal inspection of records on mutually convenient date to enable him to obtain the required
information as sought in the 6(1) application, by giving advance intimation to the appellant/complainant
in writing for inspection of the record and to report compliance to the Commission.

S
With the above observation and direction, these appeals/complaints are closed.

T
Authenticated by:

Section Head
Coy to: - IT Section/SF
Katta Shekar Reddy
State Information Commissioner

Note: This is system generated copy and no signature is required