'What Will An MP Say In Parliament If He Doesn’t Have Information?': Telangana High Court On Denial Of Information Under RTI Act To Congress MP

The Telangana High Court has asked the state government and the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority (HMDA) to explain their failure in responding to RTI applications filed by State Congress Committee President and Member Parliament Anumula Revanth Reddy.

“If a member of the Parliament can’t speak about public activities, then who can? If he does not have information, what will he be able to say in the Parliament? He needs to ventilate public grievance,” Justice B. Vijaysen Reddy remarked.

Revanth Reddy has challenged the non-furnishing of information by authorities in respect of the contract of a tollbooth under Toll Operate Transfer (TOT) model at Nehru Outer Ring Road, Hyderabad, under an RTI Application preferred by him.

Reddy has contended that the tollbooth has been leased out for 30 years as opposed to the general practice of 20 years, which is also recommended by the National Highways Authority of India. He has also alleged that the tender was allotted to a company, at a lesser rate of 7,380 cores, without disclosing the base price.

Seeking information on the bidding process, Revanth Reddy had filed the RTI application on May 01. On May 23, the Public Information Officer & Managing Director of Hyderabad Growth Corridor Ltd (HGCL) replied to the application filed by the petitioner, furnishing only partial information stating that the rest was still under consideration, the court was told.

The MP filed another application on June 14 seeking information on the report prepared by the Transaction Advisor, the decision of the Council of Ministers to keep the duration of lease for 30 years and the information regarding the revenue generation for the years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.

Revanth Reddy said that during the pendency of the second application, he was shocked to find out that HMDA had filed a suit before the trial Court, claiming that he was been making defamatory comments in the media about the HMDA. The trial court passed an ex-party order, in the form of a gag-order, preventing him from making any scandalous statements about HMDA till the August 03, the court was told.

Alleging that suit was "retaliatory in nature" to prevent him from speaking against HMDA regarding the non-furnishing of information as prayed for in the RTI Applications, Revanth Reddy said that since HDMA failed to respond to the second RTI application after a lapse of 30 days, he has approached the court by way of writ. Since the posts of Chief State Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioner are lying vacant, he has approached the court directly.

Senior Advocate A. Venkatesh on behalf of HMDA contended that the suit filed before the trial court was not a retaliatory move. He argued that the two are matters are unrelated and contended that although an estimate amount at which the TOT tender was allotted might have found its way in the Public Domain, but HMDA cannot release the information until finality of financial closure.

He also said that the petitioner has all the right to question the information available in the public domain, but not at the cost of defaming another.

The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, advocate T. Rajinikanth Reddy contended that unless information falls within Section 8 or 11 of the RTI Act, the authorities are bound to furnish information.

Advocate General B.S Prasad requested time for the court for filing counter. He also stated that whatever information can be provided will be provided.

Title: Anumula Revanth Reddy v. State of Telangana