Date on which Order was reserved

:

24.02.2026

Date on which Order was

pronounced

:

12.03.2026

Date on which Order was uploaded

on the website of the High Court

:

12.03.2026

APHC010093302015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

AT AMARAVATI

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

[3327]

THURSDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF MARCH

TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 1292/2015

Between:

1. DR.P.S.N. MURTHY, VISAKHAPATNAM, S/O LATE SURYA

SUBRAHMANYAM, HI NDU AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS,

ADVOCATE ROLL NO. 2699/2001 R/O 6-16-2, CHAINULU'S

ARCADE, NEAR SAIBABA TEMPLE, EAST POINT

COLONY, CHINNA WALTAIR, P.O. VISAKHAPATNAM -

530017

...PETITIONER

A N D

1. SECY SCIENCE TECHNOLOGY DEPT NEW DELHI ANO,

DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN, NEW MEHRAULI ROAD, NEW

DELHI-110 016

2. THE HEAD SERC DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE

& TECHNOLOGY TECHNOLOGY BHAVAN NEW

MEHRAULI ROAD NEW DELHI-110016

...RESPONDENT(S):

Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying

that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the

High Court may be pleased to pass an appropriate writ or order or

direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus

declaring the action of the 18t Respondent in issuing letter No.

HR/UR/17/2011 dated 12.04.2013 rejecting the Project submitted

by the Petitioner as highly illegal, arbitrary and violative of

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

2

principles of natural justice and contrary to Utilisation of Scientific

Expertise of Retired Scientists (Users) Scheme formulated by the

1St Respondent and issue consequential directions to the

Respondents to grant aid/honorarium by accepting the Project

entitled "Practice of Geological Resource Evaluation (Boreholes to

Board Room) for Professional and Students" submitted by the

Petitioner in the interests of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2015(WPMP 1692 OF 2015

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to grant

aid/honorarium by accepting the Project entitled "Practice of

Geological Resource Evaluation (Boreholes to Board Room) for

Professional and Students" submitted by the Petitioner under the

Utilisation of Scientific Expertise of Retired Scientists (Users)

Scheme in the interests of justice and pass

IA NO: 1 OF 2025

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the

circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition,

the High Court may be pleased to allow the petitioner to file 6

additional Documents EX P 26 to 31 i.e., (1) Order dated 13-08-

2013 from Dr. Inderjit Singh addressed to Dr. P.S.N. Murthy (2)

Letter dated 25-10-2013 from Dr. R. Brakashpathy addressed to

Dr. P.S.N. Murthy (3) 23-9-2013 Appeal of Dr. P.S.N. Murthy

addressed to Dr. Inderjit Singh (4) 2010 DST Book Writing Format,

(5) DST Guidelines and Format for submission of proposals, (6)

Relevant pages from the Printed book in the interests of Justice,

as otherwise the Petitioner will be put to irreparable loss and

damage ,as such pass

Counsel for the Petitioner:

1. K SRINIVASA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

1. DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

2. O UDAYA KUMAR (CENTRAL GOVT COUNSEL)

The Court made the following:

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

3

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K SREENIVASA REDDY

WRIT PETITION NO: 1292 OF 2015

O R D E R

Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Rao, learned counsel for the Writ

Petitioner, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for

respondent No.1 and Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned Standing

Counsel for Central Government representing respondent No.2.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed seeking to declare the

action of 1

st

respondent in issuing Letter No.HR/UR/17/2011, dated

12.04.2013 rejecting the Project submitted by the Writ Petitioner,

as illegal, arbitrary, violative of principles of natural justice and

contrary to the Utilisation of Scientific Expertise of Retired

Scientists Scheme (for brevity ‘the USERS Scheme’) formulated by

1

st

respondent, and consequently, direct the respondents to grant

aid/honorarium by accepting the Project ‘Practice of Geological

Resource Evaluation (Boreholes to Board Room) for Professional

and Students’ submitted by the Writ Petitioner.

3. It is the case of the Writ Petitioner that the Writ

Petitioner worked as General Manager (Investigation) and

Geostatistics, National Mineral Development Corporation Limited

(for brevity ‘NMDC’). The Writ Petitioner holds Three (03) Doctorate

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

4

Degrees, in Geology (Andhra University), Geo-Statistics (Indian

School Mines, Dhanbad) and Musicology (Science of Music) (Indira

Kala Sangeet Viswavidyalay, Khairagarh), and got published 45

Articles in Geology, Exploration and Geo-statistics, 12 Articles in

Law and 12 Articles on Musicology.

(b) One K.L.Rai, former Professor of Economic and

Mining Geology, ISM Dhanbad, advised the Writ Petitioner to write

a book under the USERS Scheme of the Department of Science

and Technology (for brevity ‘DST’) on ‘Practice of Resource

Evaluation’, which shall include (i) Classical, (ii) Statistical, and (iii)

Geostatistical Methods, with relevant mathematical theory with

Indian examples and solved problems in a self-taught method,

useful for students, Research Scholars, University Teachers and

Mining Professionals; that the Writ Petitioner submitted a proposal

for book writing, ‘Practice of Geological Resource Evaluation

(Boreholes to Board Room)’ under the USERS Scheme on DST on

10.06.2010; that as the Writ Petitioner was informed that his

proposal could not be favourably recommended by the Experts, the

Writ Petitioner submitted Revised Proposal through the Andhra

University on 10.06.2011; that the Andhra University agreed to

provide working space and library facilities to the Writ Petitioner

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

5

and that, the Capital Book Publishing Company, New Delhi agreed

to publish the book after he finishes writing the manuscript.

(c) The Writ Petitioner sent an e-Mail and letters dated

06.08.2015 and 15.11.2015 to one S.S.Kohli, Head, SERC Division

seeking status of his proposal and the Writ Petitioner also clarified

to DST that he is ready to withdraw his proposal, if such book

exists, but he did not receive any reply; that thereafter, vide Letter

dated 12.04.2013, the DST informed the Writ Petitioner that his

proposal to write a book was not favourably recommended by the

Experts; that the Writ Petitioner sought information about the

names and qualifications of the Experts and their comments from

the Nodal CPIO under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for

brevity ‘the RTI’) vide letter dated 16.05.2013, but, they did not

furnish full information, however, vide Letter dated 10.06.2013 the

Writ Petitioner was informed that the Experts observed that many

books are available on similar subject.

(d) The Writ Petitioner preferred appeal before the

Appellate Authority on 02.07.2013 for failure to furnish the details of

the Experts; that the Writ Petitioner vide Letter dated 02.07.2013

also sought information under the RTI Act about the name of the

supposed books on Geology subject and the names of projects

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

6

approved by DST from 2010 to till now, but as nothing was heard

from the DST, he made a representation to the then Minister of

DST; that in reply to the representation dated 02.07.2013, the

CPIO vide letter dated 14.08.2013 stated that the Writ Petitioner

raised questions but did not seek information under the RTI Act.

The Appellate Authority in its letter vide No.F-12015/145/2013-RTI

dated 25.10.2013 observed that the DST does not have the

information regarding the books which are supposed to be written

on the subject. Further, the authority directed the CPIO to furnish

the names of the Experts of the Management Advisory Committee

(MAC) DST, New Delhi. Accordingly, the CPIO furnished the

information and though the Experts are highly qualified in different

fields, their observation that many books are available in the area

and field books are available, falls outside their expertise.

(e) The proposed book presents (i) mathematics for

understanding the methods, (ii) present examples, (iii) present

solved problems and (iv) supplementary problems with answers.

When the Writ Petitioner asked for the names of books available on

the proposed subject, the Joint Secretary stated that no such list is

available with DST, therefore, the two statements i.e., observation

for rejection of proposal and not having the list available with the

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

7

DST, are both contradictory; that the Members of the Expert

Committee, who made recommendations either did not have

specialized knowledge and experience or they were not properly

briefed to appreciate and understand the Writ Petitioner’s proposal;

that the proposal of Writ Petitioner had been dealt with, in a casual

manner and had not received serious attention as it deserves; that

in case, the DST could furnish the name of one book on similar

lines, the Writ Petitioner is ready to withdraw his proposal; that

though the Writ Petitioner made representations on 19.08.2013 and

06.01.2015, nothing was heard from the Ministry so far. Hence, the

Writ Petition.

4. Respondents filed counter-affidavit denying the

contents of the affidavit accompanying Writ Petition, contending

inter alia that the Writ Petition is not maintainable as the Writ

Petitioner, instead of approaching a competent Civil Court, filed the

present Writ Petition. In the Meetings held on 18.01.2011 and

08.08.2011 by the Expert Committee, constituted by the

Department, it was resolved not to recommend the proposal

submitted by the Writ Petitioner. The parameters that require

effective consideration by the Expert Committee viz., (i) credentials

of PI, which include his academic qualifications, academic work

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

8

done which includes publications in ‘peer review’ journals (SCI

Journals) and to see the activeness of the PI, (ii) last 5 years

publications in the area. While evaluating the proposal, the relevant

experience and publications in peer review impact factor journal is

considered and more emphasis is given on last five years’

publications in the relevant area of book writing, which the Writ

Petitioner is lacking.

(b) That the SERB/DST requests to encourage all

Scientists to submit proposals under various schemes of the

Department and the USERS is one of them; that the respondent

considered the representation of the Writ Petitioner forwarded by

the Minister of the respondent Ministry and the Writ Petitioner was

advised to get a well formulated proposal, but the same was not

received from him as desired. The decision made in the Committee

is collective decision of the Expert Committee; that the USERS

Committee consists of Scientists having vast professional

experience in the respective areas, including sub-areas in domain

of expertise along with high level of maturity. Hence, it is prayed to

dismiss the Writ Petition.

5. The Writ Petitioner filed reply-affidavit to the counter-

affidavit, reiterating the contents of the Writ Petition affidavit.

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

9

6. Learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner would contend

that the Writ Petitioner, who worked as General Manager

(Investigation) and Geostatistics, National Mineral Development

Corporation Limited (for brevity ‘NMDC’), Hyderabad, being an

Expert in the subjects of Geology and Geostatistics, his book, titling

‘Practice of Geological Resource Evaluation (Boreholes to Board

Room)’ under the scheme of Utilization of Scientific Expertise of

Retired Scientists’, which falls under ‘Applied Research’ and ‘New

Technologies’, was not recommended favourably by the Expert

Committee on the ground that many books are available on the

subject of which the Writ Petitioner proposed to publish his book.

Learned counsel would further contend that there are individual

books on the subjects viz., Economic Geology, Structural Geology,

Mining Geology, Geometry, Mathematics, Statistics, Geostatistics,

Mine Planning, but there is no single book dealing with all the

above subjects. It is his contention that even the Experts of the

Management Advisory Committee (MAC) DST, New Delhi, who

made recommendations were not having specialized knowledge

and experience.

7. Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India for

respondent No.1 would contend that the Writ Petitioner, instead of

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

10

approaching a competent Civil Court, filed the present Writ Petition

and it is not maintainable. It is further contended that the Expert

Committee, constituted by the Department, resolved not to

recommend the proposal submitted by the Writ Petitioner as it does

not meet the parameters that require effective consideration.

Learned Deputy Solicitor General of India further contends that the

USERS Committee consists of Scientists, having vast professional

experience in the respective areas, including sub-areas in the

domain of expertise and the decision of the Committee is a

collective decision. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

8. Sri O.Udaya Kumar, learned Central Government

Counsel representing respondent No.2 reiterated the contentions of

learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and prays the Court to

dismiss the Writ Petition.

9. Perused the entire material available on record.

10. Now, the point that arises for consideration in the

present Writ Petition is, whether the Writ Petitioner has made out

his case for directing the respondents to grant aid/honorarium by

accepting the Project ‘Practice of Geological Resource Evaluation

(Boreholes to Board Room) for Professional and Students’?

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

11

11. There is no dispute with regard to the qualifications

acquired by the Writ Petitioner and also in regard to service

rendered by him under various designations. Indisputably, vide

Letter dated 16.03.2010, Prof. K.L.Rai, President of Association of

Economic Geologist advised the Writ Petitioner to write a book on

Ore Reserve Estimation Methods to cater the needs of University

Teachers and Research Scholars as well as the Professionals of

Mining Industry under the scheme of USERS, on the pretext that

there is no good book with Indian Case Studies on the aforesaid

subject.

12. The main objective of the USERS scheme is to utilise

the expertise and potential of large number of eminent scientists in

the Country, who remain active and deeply motivated to participate

in the Science and Technology Development activities, even after

retirement and for such utilisation of service, a sum of Rs.20,000/-

per month has been fixed payable to the Superannuated

Investigators/Scientists/Technocrats towards honorarium.

13. Vide Letter No.HR/UR/38/2010, dated 03.02.2011, one

S.S.Kohli, Scientist-F, Department of Science and Technology,

New Delhi informed the Writ Petitioner that his project proposal

could not be favourably recommended by the Expert Committee. In

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

12

the meantime, the Capital Publishing Company, New Delhi on

06.06.2011 made a communication that they undertake to publish

the Book entitled ‘Practice of Geological Resource Evaluation

(Borehole to Board Room) for Professional and Students’ authored

by the Writ Petitioner and one A.K.Singh, after due scrutiny and

review process. In reply to the said correspondence, the Writ

Petitioner vide letter to the Head, SERC Division, Department of

Science and Technology, New Delhi, dated 10.06.2011 submitted a

fresh proposal mentioning the salient points of the book. However,

since no communication was received from the concerned

authority, vide Letters dated 06.08.2012 and 15.11.2012, the Writ

Petitioner addressed letters to the Head, SERC Division,

Department of Science and Technology stating that he learnt that

the Expert Committee felt that similar publication/books were

brought out by the reputed Publishers, and if the name of the book,

author, year of publication and name of publisher is intimated, he

would withdraw his proposal immediately.

14. The Writ Petitioner made an application under the RTI

Act, 2005 to furnish the details viz. academic qualifications, field of

specialization in Geology and professional qualifications of the

Members of the Two Expert Committee that scrutinized the Writ

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

13

Petitioner’s proposal and also their observations in regard to the

proposal and fresh proposal made by the Writ Petitioner. In reply to

the application made by the Writ Petitioner under the RTI Act, the

CPIO & Head SERC, DST vide Letter No.HR/UR/17/2011, dated

10.06.2013 stated that the information sought by the Writ Petitioner

is exempted from disclosure of information under Section 8 (e) of

the RTI Act, in public interest. With regard to observations of the

Two Expert Committee, it was stated that ‘many books are

available in the area’ and ‘field books are available’.

15. A perusal of the material on record goes to show that

the CPIO and Scientist-G vide Letter No.HR/UR/17/2011, dated

14.08.2013 in its letter stated that as per the provisions of the RTI

Act, 2005, the Writ Petitioner raised questions and not sought

information as defined under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Further, a list of books with the support of the USERS Scheme in

the last four (04) years, is available at the SERB website.

16. A perusal of the material on record further goes to

show that aggrieved by the said reply, the Writ Petitioner preferred

appeal before the Joint Secretary (Admn.), Appellate Authority

(RTI, ACT), DST, New Delhi. Vide Order No.F-12014/108/2013-

RTI, dated 13.08.2013, the Joint Secretary (Admn.) & Appellate

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

14

Authority, directed the CPIO to furnish the List of Experts of the

Management Advisory Committee (MAC). In regard to Writ

Petitioner misgiving of the credibility of the Experts, it was held that

the query raised does not constitute information under Section 2 (f)

of the RTI Act, 2005 and accordingly, disposed of, the appeal.

17. A perusal of material on record further goes to show

that pursuant to the Letter dated 23.09.2013 addressed by the Writ

Petitioner that he did not receive any details as per the Order dated

13.08.2013, vide Order No.F-12014/145/2013-RTI, dated

25.10.2013, the Joint Secretary (Admn.) and Appellate Authority,

expressed its regrets in regard to the delay caused in providing the

list of Experts of the Management Advisory Committee (MAC) to

the Writ Petitioner. However, the Writ Petitioner was directed to file

his grievance at appropriate forum, if desired so, as the RTI Act

cannot be used as a grievance redressal mechanism. It was

observed in the said order that the Committee Members, who are

Experts in different areas, take into consideration a number of

factors based on their expertise in selection of the proposal and

that no information is available in DST regarding list of the books

as desired by the Writ Petitioner.

SRK, J

W.P.No.1292 of 2015

15

18. A perusal of additional material documents filed by the

Writ Petitioner goes to show that subsequently, the Writ Petitioner

wrote a book titling Methods of Mining Geology and Estimation of

Ore Reserves and it was got published by the Cambridge Scholars

Publishing, in the month of December, 2024. The only grievance of

the Writ Petitioner is that he was not informed the reason, as to

why the Expert Committee had not recommended his proposal,

favourably. Indeed, since the book was published by the Writ

Petitioner, the Writ Petition has become infructuous, and the Writ

Petitioner is at liberty to approach appropriate Forum for grant of

aid/honorarium for the claim of alleged loss, if any, caused to him

by spending his time contributing towards the proposed project.

Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition is not

maintainable.

19. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in the

Writ Petition shall stand closed.

JUSTICE K. SREENIVASA REDDY

12

th

March, 2026.

DNB