The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging orders of authorities rejecting an RTI application. The court rejected the petition finding no perversity in concurrent findings.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 1033 OF 2012 "Chandrakant Baburao Adsule Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others."
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders Memoranda of Coram or directions and Registrar's orders. appearances, Court's Orders
1
Mr.T.M. Venjane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.K. Kadam, AGP for respondents.
CORAM :- B.R. GAVAI &
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH, JJ.
DATE :- 7TH FEBRUARY, 2012.
PER COURT :-
1] No perversity is noticed in the concurrent findings recorded by the first authority, the appellate authority and the State Information Commission, in passing the impugned orders. Hence, the writ petition is rejected.
[SUNIL P. DESHMUKH,J.]
[B.R. GAVAI, J.]
grt/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the concurrent findings of the first authority, appellate authority and State Information Commission are perverse in discarding the right to information claim.
Chandrakant Baburao Adsule
The State of Maharashtra
B.R. GAVAI
SUNIL P. DESHMUKH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
