This special leave petition has been filed against the judgment and order dated 24.4.2009 passed in Writ Petition No.28810 of 2008 by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the petitioners application and successive appeals under the Right to Information Act, 2005 hereinafter called the RTI Act has been dismissed.
Instead, he had filed the application under Section 6 of the RTI Act to know why and for what reasons Respondent No.
The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are, that the petitioner claimed to be in exclusive possession of the land in respect of which civil suit No.854 of 2002 was filed before Additional Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District praying for perpetual injunction by Dr. Mallikarjina Rao against the petitioner and another, from entering into the suit land.
Second Appeal against the said order was also dismissed by the Andhra Pradesh State Information Commission vide order dated 20.11.2007.
The petitioner challenged the said order before the High Court, seeking a direction to the Respondent No.1 to furnish the information as under what circumstances the Respondent No.4 had passed the Judicial Order dismissing the appeal against the interim relief granted by the Trial Court.
The Writ Petition had been dismissed by the High Court on the grounds that the information sought by the petitioner cannot be asked for under the RTI Act.
In the said petition, the direction was sought by the Petitioner to the Respondent No.1 to provide information as asked by him vide his application dated 15.11.2006 from the Respondent No.4 a Judicial Officer as for what reasons, the Respondent No.4 had decided his Miscellaneous Appeal dishonestly.
The Respondent No.4 had been impleaded as respondent by name.
Hence, this petition.
4 has decided his appeal in a particular manner.
Thus, the application was number maintainable.
The said application was rejected vide order dated 23.11.2006 and an appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 20.1.2007.
4 omitted to examine certain documents and why he came to such a companyclusion.
The nature of the questions posed in the application was to the effect why and for what reason Respondent No.
Altogether, the petitioner had sought answers for about ten questions raised in his application and most of the questions were to the effect as to why Respondent No.
More so, the judicial officers are protected by the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850 hereinafter called the Act 1850 .
1 and Appellate authorities rendered the petitioner remediless.
At the outset, it must be numbered that the petitioner has number challenged the order passed by the Respondent No.
In one of the suits i.e. O.S. No.875 of 2003, the Trial Court granted temporary injunction against the Petitioner.
Being aggrieved, the plaintiff therein preferred CMA No.185 of 2002 and the same was also dismissed.
Two other suits were filed in respect of the same property impleading the Petitioner also as the defendant.
Rejection of the application by the Respondent No.
Similar information had been sought on other points.
Petitioner vide application dated 15.11.2006 had asked as under what circumstances the Respondent No.4 ignored the written arguments and additional written arguments, as the ignorance of the same tantamount to judicial dishonesty, the Respondent No.4 omitted to examine the fabricated documents filed by the plaintiff and for what reason the respondent number4 omitted to examine the documents filed by the petitioner.
Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner was maintainable.
4 had ignored certain documents and why he had number taken numbere of certain arguments advanced by the petitioners companynsel.
4 had companye to a particular companyclusion which was against the petitioner.
The RTI Act does number provide for any special protection to the Judges, thus petitioner has a right to know the reasons as to how the Respondent No.
Application filed for interim relief in the said suit stood dismissed.
Being aggrieved, Petitioner preferred the CMA No.67 of 2005, which was dismissed by the Appellate Court Respondent No.4 vide order dated 10.8.2006.
Petitioner filed an application dated 15.11.2006 under Section 6 of the RTI Act before the Administrative Officer cum Assistant State Public Information Officer respondent number1 seeking information to the queries mentioned therein.
