Dismissed

K. Shivraj Mani v. the State of Maharashra and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC3 Sept 2007CONPW/55/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay dismissed a contempt petition filed alleging violation of an order directing respondents to furnish information. The court held that the order was belatedly complied with via an RTI communication and the validity of the information's relevance could not be resolved in contempt.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed. Petitioner to seek appropriate remedy if not satisfied with the disclosed information.

K. Shivraj Mani Vs the State of Maharashra and 4 Ors. — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2007)

¶1

 : 1 :

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.55 OF 2007

¶5

IN

¶6

 CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.388 OF 2006

¶7

IN

¶8

 WRIT PETITION NO.194 OF 2005

¶9

 Dr.K.Shivraj Mani .. Petitioner.

¶10

 Versus

¶11

 The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents.

¶12

 Petitioner is present in person.

¶13

 Mr.Milind More, A.G.P. for respondents.

¶14

CORAM : S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.

¶15

 DATE : 3rd September, 2007.

¶16

P.C.:

¶17

 1. The Contempt Petition complains that the order

¶18

 passed by this Court, directing the respondents to furnish
 certain information to the petitioner has been violated.
 The attention of this Court is invited to the orders dated
 12th February, 2007 and 9th April, 2007.

¶19

 : 2 :

¶20

 2. In response to this Contempt Petition, an
 affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents, in
 which it has been stated that the information sought by
 the petitioner has already been provided vide letter dated
 19th May, 2007. This is a letter / communication under
 the Right to Information Act.

¶21

 3. The petitioner is not satisfied with this and has
 filed an additional affidavit, in which the pleas that are
 raised are not that the information is not provided but
 the information is not relevant to the issue raised in the
 main matter.

¶22

 4. These contentions are not capable of being
 resolved in contempt jurisdiction. Although, the order
 has been passed in February but belatedly it has been
 complied with and the communication is annexed to the
 respondents’ affidavit. The petitioner does not deny
 having received the same. In such circumstances, the
 contempt petition is not the remedy for the petitioner.
 Petition dismissed. However, it is for the petitioner to
 seek appropriate remedy if he is not satisfied with the
 information disclosed to him by the respondents.

¶23

 : 3 :

¶24

 (S.C.Dharmadhikari, J.)

K. Shivraj Mani v. the State of Maharashra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. Shivraj Mani v. the State of Maharashra and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anil Rao Vs Land T Finance Ltd. and Ors.

d.b. kumar Vs mahanagar telephone nigam Ltd.

m/s nobel film distributors Vs mr vijay gelani

Sambha Dhondi Jorwar (Patil) and Anr. Vs Narayan Dhondi Jorwar and Ors.

M/S. Bhagwandas Agencies Vs National Textiles Corpn. Ltd. New Delhi and Anr.

Union of India Vs M/S. Arora Associates