Case at a Glance
A citizen filed RTI applications in January 2026 with the Sub-Registrar’s office and GHMC’s town planning section, seeking among other things certified copies of registered documents, and paid the fees demanded. No information came, and neither first appellate authority issued notice, held a hearing or passed an order. Second appeals were registered by the Telangana Information Commission in June 2026 but remained pending. The Telangana High Court held that the First Appellate Authority must direct disclosure where possible and ordered the Commission to decide the pending appeals by a reasoned order within four weeks.
On 12 January 2026 the petitioner filed two applications under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 — one to the Public Information Officer at a Sub-Registrar’s office and one to the PIO in the Chief City Planner / Town Planning Section of GHMC. The Sub-Registrar’s office demanded ₹500 plus a ₹50 non-judicial stamp paper through T-App Folio, and GHMC asked for ₹500 by challan or demand draft. The petitioner paid both, including by a demand draft dated 9 February 2026.
His first appeals under Section 19(1) to the District Registrar and the Chief City Planner received no notice, hearing or order within the statutory period. After he complained to the Information Commissioners in March 2026, internal directions were issued to furnish the information, but on 3 May 2026 the Sub-Registrar’s office asked him to pay the ₹500 and ₹50 again. Two second appeals under Section 19(3) were registered on 12 June 2026. He then filed a writ petition, pointing to earlier orders in W.P. Nos. 6454 and 19607 of 2026 in which the Commission was directed to decide similar second appeals within three weeks. The Government Pleaders stated that the Commission would decide the appeals under the Act and the authorities would abide by the court’s order.
The Key Question Before the Court
Where PIOs and first appellate authorities fail to act on RTI applications and second appeals remain pending, can the High Court direct the Information Commission to decide them within a fixed time?
The RTI Timeline Is Not Optional
Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti found that the petitioner had paid the amounts required. The court set out the statutory framework: a PIO must respond within 30 days under Section 7; a first appeal lies within 30 days and must be disposed of within 30 days, extendable to 45; and a second appeal lies within 90 days. The second appeals here concerned the inaction of the first appellate authorities, who had not taken any step to direct disclosure. The court observed that “it is imperative on the part of the First Appellate Authority” to direct furnishing of information where possible.
Noting that there was no material showing whether the information had ever been furnished, the court did not decide the wider prayers itself — including the claim to free information under Section 7(6), Section 20 penalty proceedings, preservation of land and registration records, and hybrid hearings (for which Kishan Chand Jain v. Union of India, (2023) 10 SC CK 2927, (2024) 13 SCC 538 was cited). Instead, it left these to the statutory forum and directed the Commission to dispose of the pending appeals by a reasoned order.
What the Court Actually Held
- The petitioner had paid the fees demanded by both PIOs.
- The RTI Act prescribes fixed timelines for the PIO (30 days) and the First Appellate Authority (30 days, extendable to 45).
- The First Appellate Authority must direct furnishing of information where possible; inaction defeats the scheme.
- The Telangana Information Commission must dispose of the pending appeals by a reasoned order within four weeks of receiving the order; the writ was disposed of with no costs.
Why This Judgment Matters
- Many RTI applicants face silence at both the PIO and first-appeal stages; this order shows the High Court will step in to enforce time-bound decisions.
- It stresses the duty of first appellate authorities, who are often the weakest link in RTI enforcement.
- It follows a pattern of similar Telangana High Court orders directing the Commission to decide pending second appeals quickly.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For RTI Applicants
- Keep proof of fee payments; the court specifically recorded that the fees were paid.
- If the first appeal is not decided in time, file a second appeal and, if it too languishes, a writ seeking a time-bound decision is an option.
For Counsel
- Plead the statutory timelines (Sections 7 and 19) and the authorities’ inaction with dates.
- Expect the court to direct the Commission to decide rather than adjudicate penalties or fee questions itself.
Key Takeaways
- PIOs must respond within 30 days.
- First appeals must be decided within 30 to 45 days.
- The First Appellate Authority must actively direct disclosure.
- The Commission was given four weeks to pass reasoned orders.
Frequently Asked Questions
What can I do if my RTI first appeal is not decided?
You can file a second appeal before the Information Commission under Section 19(3). In this case, when the second appeals also remained pending, the High Court directed the Commission to decide them within four weeks.
Did the High Court order the information to be given free or impose penalty?
No. It left those questions, including Section 7(6) and Section 20 penalty, to the Commission and only directed a reasoned decision on the appeals.
What are the RTI time limits mentioned by the court?
30 days for the PIO to respond, 30 days to file a first appeal, 30 days (extendable to 45) for its disposal, and 90 days to file a second appeal.
Conclusion
The order is a short but useful reminder that RTI timelines bind every level of the system, including first appellate authorities, and that the High Court can direct the Information Commission to decide pending appeals within a fixed period.
Practical takeaway: Track every RTI deadline, keep fee receipts, escalate to first and second appeal on time, and consider a writ for a time-bound direction if the Commission does not act.
For more judgments, legal opinions and case analysis, visit courtkutchehry.com