Disposed

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2012WP/4259/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court noted a pending second appeal regarding a delay in information disclosure. The court accepted an envelope containing the requested information but directed the appellate authority to decide the pending second appeal within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 4 to decide the pending Second Appeal within six weeks on its own merit and in accordance with law.

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare Vs State of Maharashtra and… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2012)

¶1

wp 4259-12.doc

¶2

RMA

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4259 OF 2012

¶5

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare .. Petitioner

¶6

¶7

State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

¶8

Mr. K.D. Bhosale i/b Devika Nigude for the Petitioner

¶9

Mr. A.B. Vagyani for Respondent No. 1 - State

¶10

Mr. Haribhau Deshinge for Respondent No. 2

¶11

CORAM : D. D. SINHA &

¶12

SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, JJ

¶13

DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2012.

¶14

P.C.:

¶15

Heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶16

Learned counsel for the Petitioner has brought to our notice order dated 28.11.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority - Education Officer (Secondary), Zilla Parishad, Sangli in an Appeal preferred under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short, hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Learned counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that by virtue of the said order, the Respondent No. 2 i.e. the Information Officer was directed to give relevant information to the Petitioner and since there was

¶17

Pg 1 of 3

¶18

wp 4259-12.doc

¶19

delay caused in giving the information to the Petitioner by the Information Officer, fine of Rs. 100/- was also imposed on the Information Officer. It is contended that the Petitioner has preferred Second Appeal before Respondent No. 4 under Section 19(3) of the Act since the Information Officer, inspite of order dated 28.11.2011 failed to provide the requisite information to the Petitioner as well as fine imposed vide order dated 28.11.2011 was not in conformity with the scheme of Section 20 of the Act. It is contended that the said Appeal is pending for decision and therefore, prayed that direction be given to Respondent No.4 to decide the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner within a stipulated period in accordance with law.

¶20

Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has submitted that Respondent No. 2 asked the Petitioner to visit the office of Respondent No. 2 so that requisite information can be furnished to the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner failed to attend the office of Respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 has handed over an envelop to the learned counsel for the Petitioner in the Court which according to Respondent No. 2 contains the requisite information sought by the Petitioner under the Act from him. The said envelop is accepted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

¶21

In view of the above referred facts and circumstances, it

¶22

Pg 2 of 3

¶23

wp 4259-12.doc

¶24

appears that the Appeal filed by the Petitioner under Section 19(3) of the Act is pending before Respondent No. 4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 handed over envelop to the learned counsel for the Petitioner which according to the learned counsel for Respondent No. 2, contains requisite information asked by the Petitioner. The said envelop has been accepted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner. Be that as it may, since the Second Appeal is pending before Respondent No. 4 for decision, we dispose of the Writ Petition with direction to Respondent No. 4 to decide the Second Appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order dated 28.11.2011 only in respect of surviving cause of action involved in the Appeal, on its own merit and in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

¶25

[ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J ] [ D. D. SINHA, J ]z

¶26

jfoanz vkacsjdj

¶27

Pg 3 of 3

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare v. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare v. State of Maharashtra 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

Premnarayan Harinarayanji Lakhani Vs Everest Fincap Pvt.Ltd.and 11 Ors.

Dr. Nandu Dwarkadas Chhabria Vs State of Bank of India and Anr.

Gajanan Tukaram Tambe Vs Union Bank of India, through, Managing Director and Ors.

Balasaheb Ganpatrao Zambare Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Central Bank of India Vs Messrs Unique Gardens and Ors.

Pimpri Chinchwad Ration Shop Owner Asso. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.