RTI Act | Public Authorities & Appellate Bodies Duty-Bound To Adhere To Statutory Timelines: Telangana High Court Directs Commission To Decide Pending Appeals Within 4 Weeks

"It is imperative on the part of the Public Information Offices to dispose of the applications filed under Section 6 of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Further, it is imperative on the part of the First Appellate Authority to direct that information be furnished, if it can be made available." Telangana High Court, in an order pronounced on October 5, 2026, held that statutory authorities and First Appellate Authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 are duty-bound to process applications and appeals strictly in accordance with statutory timelines, while directing the State Information Commission to dispose of long-pending second appeals within four weeks by passing a reasoned order.

 Justice Anil Kumar Jukanti observed that "it is imperative on the part of the Public Information Offices to dispose of the applications filed under Section 6 of the Act in accordance with the provisions of the Act," and that appellate authorities cannot sit idle on citizens' requests after fees have been duly remitted.

The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus against the Telangana Information Commission and municipal authorities over their prolonged inaction in listing and deciding his statutory second appeals. The petitioner had initially sought certified copies of town planning and registration records from the Sub-Registrar and Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC), but failed to receive the information despite paying the mandated fees. Consequently, statutory first appeals and subsequent second appeals preferred under Section 19(3) of the Act remained languishing without consideration.

The primary question before the High Court was whether the Telangana Information Commission and the subordinate appellate authorities were legally obligated to adhere to statutory timelines under Section 7 and Section 19 of the RTI Act. The court was also called upon to determine whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the time-bound adjudication of pending second appeals.

Statutory Mandate Under Section 7 Demands Compliance Within 30 Days

Examining the procedural framework governing public authorities, the High Court emphasized that statutory timelines under the RTI Act are mandatory. The bench highlighted that once a formal request is made under Section 6(1) and the applicant complies with the required fee requisitions, the Public Information Officer has no discretion to withhold action indefinitely.

The court reiterated that under Section 7 of the Act, a request for information must be processed within 30 days by the Public Information Officer, either by furnishing the information upon payment of prescribed fees or rejecting it under the permissible grounds outlined in Sections 8 and 9 of the Act. The bench noted that failure to furnish information within the statutory window amounts to deemed refusal, entitling the citizen to invoke the appellate mechanism.

"As per Section 7 of the Act, the request for information has to be complied within 30 days by the Public Information Offices, upon payment of such fee, if any required or the request for information can be rejected for any reasons specified in Sections 8 & 9 of the Act."

Procedure For Third-Party Information Must Be Strictly Complied With

The bench also touched upon the special obligations cast on public authorities when dealing with third-party records. The court clarified that the statute lays down a concise timeline to invite submissions whenever confidential third-party details are involved.

The court pointed out that if information sought relates to any third party and is confidential, the Public Information Officer is required to issue notice within five days of receiving the request and invite representations on disclosure, which must be actively evaluated prior to taking an administrative decision.

Appellate Authorities Cannot Abdicate Statutory Duties

Turning to the grievance concerning the total inaction of the First Appellate Authorities, the High Court observed that Section 19(1) and Section 19(6) prescribe strict temporal parameters for resolving first appeals. The court remarked that the statutory mechanism cannot be rendered illusory by appellate authorities simply ignoring filings or failing to pass reasoned orders within the statutory limit of 30 to 45 days.

The bench took note of the factual matrix where the petitioner had remitted the demanded amounts, including Rs. 500 and non-judicial stamp papers, yet neither the District Registrar nor the Chief City Planner acting as First Appellate Authorities took decisive steps to ensure actual disclosure or conclude the statutory appeal proceedings.

"Further, it is imperative on the part of the First Appellate Authority to direct that information be furnished, if it can be made available. No such steps seem to have been taken up."

High Court Directs State Information Commission To Pass Speaking Order Within Four Weeks

Observing that second appeals under Section 19(3) were pending before the State Information Commission with no resolution in sight, the court ruled that statutory tribunals must exercise their supervisory and appellate powers without unreasonable delay. Citing previous instances where the High Court had directed expedited consideration, the bench held that the petitioner could not be left remedy-less due to administrative inertia.

The court accordingly disposed of the writ petition with a peremptory direction to the Telangana Information Commission to hear and dispose of the petitioner's second appeals on merits within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order through a speaking and reasoned order.

The ruling reaffirms the binding nature of the procedural timelines engrafted in the RTI Act, ensuring that public authorities and appellate bodies do not defeat the legislative intent of transparency through persistent administrative delay. By mandating a four-week time-frame for disposal, the High Court highlighted that statutory second appellate remedies must remain effective and functional for citizens.

Date of Decision: 05 October 2026