Remanded

Subhash Ratansing Maher v. State Information Commission Aurangabad and Ors.

Bombay HC5 Oct 2009WP/2462/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged delays and procedural lapses in an appeal under the Right to Information Act regarding information requests. The court found the petitioner was not properly served notice of the appeal hearing and remitted the matter to the First Appellate Authority to hear the appeal afresh.

What did the court decide?

The matter is remanded to the First Appellate Authority to hear the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously after affording him an opportunity to be heard.

Subhash Ratansing Maher Vs State Information Commission… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2009)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2009

¶4

Subhash S/o.Ratansing Maher, Age-42 years, Occu-Service, R/o. C/o. Balasaheb Walaju, C-52, New Vishal Nagar, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad

¶5

PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

State Information Commission,

¶8

Aurangabad and Nashik Division, Bench at Aurangabad,

¶9

Through its Commissioner.

¶10

First Appellate Authority/ Education Officer (Primary), Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad

¶11

Public Information Officer/ Block Education Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Aurangabad,

¶12

Dist. Aurangabad

¶13

RESPONDENTS

¶14

Mr.S.B.Gastgar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.S.V.Kurundkar, learned AGP for respondent no.1

¶15

Mr.D.B.Bondar, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and 3

¶16

(CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, AND

¶17

A.V.POTDAR, J.J.)

¶18

DATE : 05/10/2009

¶19

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT : (Per A.V.Potdar, J.)

¶21

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is heard finally at the stage of admission.

¶22

By the present writ petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by The State Information Commission, Aurangabad and Nashik Division, Bench at Aurangabad dated 20/12/2008 in Appeal No. 2007/ /appeal/CR/2005. The facts which gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as - the petitioner is working as an Assistant Teacher at Aurangabad and claiming to be the President of Indian Bahujan Teacher Assosiation (IBTA) of State of Maharashtra. According to the petitioner, he has filed an application u/s. 6 of The Right to Information Act before the 3rd respondent on 07/11/2006 about the information related to June 2002 to November 2006 of Jagdamba Pratisthan Shikshan Sanstha Sanchalit Primary School, Garkheda Parisar, Aurangabad. It is alleged that as per section 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, Information Officer to inform or to reject the request u/s.8 or 9 as the case may be, but the respondents have not followed the due procedure of Law under the Right to Information Act. It is alleged that the 3rd respondent never applied his mind properly while answering the application submitted by the petitioner. It is also contended that under the provisions of Right to Information Act, the 3^rd respondent should be provided information within 30 days as per

¶23

¶24

the provisions under the Act. It is alleged by the petitioner that he had received the letter dated 06/01/2008 from the office of the 3^rd respondent in respect of receiving information sought for. Being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the 3^rd respondent for not providing the information requested for, the petitioner filed first appeal before the 2^nd respondent u/s. 19(1) of The Right to Information Act. It is contended that the petitioner waited for 5 months for the decision in first appeal, but the first appeal preferred by the petitioner was not decided by the First Appellate Authority in spite of repeated request by the petitioner to decide the first appeal. Lastly on 28/05/2007, a written request was made before the First Appellate Authority to decide the first appeal which is pending since long. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied with the inaction on the part of 2nd and 3rd respondent for not providing the information within the stipulated period as contemplated under The Right to Information Act, the petitioner preferred/filed 2nd appeal on 27/06/2007 before the first respondent u/s. 19(3) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 through the Advocate. That appeal was also pending for 1 ½ year before the first respondent. It is contended that the petitioner approached several times to the office of first respondent to inquire about the listing of the said appeal, at that time, the office bearer of the first respondent informed petitioner that as and when the matter is going to be listed before the first respondent, they will intimate it in advance either to the petitioner or to his advocate. It is alleged that the petitioner received a letter dated 06/01/2008 (At Exh.F, page no. 30) wherein it is stated that the State Information Commission has

¶25

¶26

ordered to provide the information called for within 30 days vide order dated 20/12/2008 and further directed to collect the said information from the office of Block Education Officer, Block Development Office, Aurangabad on or before 12/01/2009. Apparently this date 06/01/2008 must be 06/01/2009. It is contended by the petitioner that on receipt of this letter, he approached to the office of first respondent through his advocate and inquired about the appeal where he was intimated that on 20/12/2008, the appeal was heard and it was decided accordingly.

¶27

In response to the notice, the 2nd respondent appeared before this Court and filed affidavit in reply of one Bhagwat Ashok Ramchandra who is working in the office of Zilla Parishad, Aurangabad as Education Officer (Primary).

¶28

Heard respective counsels for the parties. It is the main grievance of the petitioner that the appeal was decided in his absence and which fact is apparent from the contents of the very first paragraph of the impugned order, the subject matter of this writ petition which shows that on the date of hearing of the appeal, the appellant was absent. According to the respondents, when the appeal was listed for hearing, notice was given to the petitioner. But petitioner remain absent. Hence we direct the respondents to produce the record before us and accordingly the record of the appellate proceeding was produced before us.

¶29

¶30

Perusal of the record of the appeal shows that notice was sent to the petitioner applicant on 20/11/2008 under the Under Posting of Service. But in the entire file, the acknowledgment about the receipt of this communication that the appeal was listed for hearing on 20/12/2008, is not found, and thus we satisfied that the petitioner applicant was not in receipt of the communication from respondent about the appeal is listed for hearing and in fact the appeal was heard in his absence. In the premise, we feel it proper that an opportunity to be given to the petitioner to hear in the appeal pending before the first respondent. In the premise, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the first respondent to hear the appeal of the petitioner expeditiously as early as possible. To enable the parties for the expeditious hearing, we direct the parties to appear before the authority i.e. the first respondent on 05/11/2009 and then the first respondent to decide the appeal after hearing the parties in accordance with Law as early as possible.

¶31

Rule is thus made absolute as indicated above. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs.

¶32

(A.V.POTDAR, J.) (P.V.HARDAS, J.)

¶33

khs/OCT 2009/wp2462-09

Subhash Ratansing Maher v. State Information Commission Aurangabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subhash Ratansing Maher v. State Information Commission Aurangabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prakash Kashinath Hire and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Vishwanath Baburao Wanve Vs Talathi, Talathi Sajja Patoda Dist. Beed

Pandurang Malram Bolewad Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dattatraya Angadrao Tambawade Vs the Schedules Tribe Certificate Vertification Committee Aurangabad and Anr.

Mangilal S/O. Bhikchand Jain Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Shri Prakash S/O. Bakrubhoi Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.