Disposed

Social Centre, Ahmednagar Thru Secretary v. the Commissioner, State Information Commission Aurangabad and Ors.

Bombay HC9 Apr 2013WP/1539/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition regarding RTI, the High Court at Aurangabad disposed of the matter by directing the petitioner to make records available for inspection by the respondent on a fixed date. The Court also held that no further prayers would be entertained by the Commission for the identical documents.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to make records available for inspection on 22.4.2013 between 11.00 a.m. and 5.00 p.m.; writ petition disposed.

Social Centre, Ahmednagar Thru Secretary Vs the… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

wp1539.12

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 1539 OF 2012

¶5

Social Center, Ahmednagar Through its Secretary ...Petitioner

¶6

versus

¶7

The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents

¶8

Mr. Yuvraj V. Kakade, advocate for the petitioner Mr. D.R. Kale, A.G.P. for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Mr. T.M. Tandale, advocate for respondent No.4

¶9

CORAM : S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED : 9^th APRIL, 2013

¶10

PER COURT :-

¶11

1. Heard counsel appearing for the respective parties.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the conduct of respondent No.4 is required to be viewed seriously. He submits that respondent No.4 is filing applications one after another, either through his mother or brother for the same documents and information. It is submitted that, the information, as sought, is already furnished to respondent No.4, however, again he approached the State Information Commission. Therefore, he submits that this petition deserves to be allowed. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits

¶13

wp1539.12 -2-

¶14

that in case this Court is not inclined to allow this petition, in that case the petitioner is ready to give inspection of the documents, as directed by the Commissioner, State Information Commission, and the respondent No.4 may be directed to visit the office of respondent No.2 on 22.4.2013.

¶15

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submits that the petitioner has not furnished requisite information to respondent No.4, inspite of his sincere efforts and directions by the authorities. He submits that he is ready to visit the office of the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar on 22.4.2013 between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. He submits that he may be allowed to take inspection of documents and also may be supplied the copies as per direction/order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the State Information Commission, Bench at Aurangabad.

¶16

Upon hearing counsel for the parties, instead of entering into the merits and de-merits of the matter, in my opinion, ends of justice would meet if the following order is passed:-

¶17

I) The petitioner to make available the record/document/ information as stated in the operative part of the order dated 21.11.2011, passed by the State Information Commission, Bench at Aurangabad, on 22.4.2013

¶18

wp1539.12

¶19

-3-

¶20

between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. for perusal of respondent No.4 and also the petitioner to comply with the said order.

¶21

II) It is made clear that, no any separate notice will be sent to respondent No.4 and as agreed by his counsel, respondent No.4 will visit the office of the petitioner on 22.4.2013 between 11.00 a.m. to 5.00 p.m. to the office of respondent No.2 the Assistant Charity Commissioner, Ahmednagar.

¶22

III) It is also made clear that for the same documents/information, as ordered by the State Information Commission, Bench at Aurangabad by order dated 21.11.2011, no further prayers would be entertained by the said Commission.

¶23

IV) Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶24

( S. S. SHINDE, J. )

¶25

rlj/

Social Centre, Ahmednagar Thru Secretary v. the Commissioner, State Information Commission Aurangabad and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Social Centre, Ahmednagar Thru Secretary v. the Commissioner, 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

Gorakh Rajdas Patil Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anohter

Syed Khalilullah Syed Azmatullah Vs the Maharashtra State Board of Wakfs and Others

Shaikh Shahed Anwar Shaikh Anisoddin Vs Shaikh Rasool Abdul Karim and Others

Sangita Suryakant Nale Vs Rajendra Murlidhar Zope

Masu Balayya and Ors. Vs Mah. State Board of Wakf Thru Chief Officer and Anr.

Nutan-Dighi Vividh Karyakari Sewa Sahakari Society Ltd. and Ors. Vs Pratapsingh Dagdusingh Rajput and Ors.