Dismissed

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. Dr. O. P. Mishra Dy. Inspector General of Police

Bombay HC18 Feb 2014CP/12/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner preferred a contempt petition alleging that the respondent violated a prior High Court order regarding RTI appeals under the Goa RTI Act, citing inordinate delay and lack of open court pronouncement. The Court relied on the respondent's affidavit showing appointment as appellate authority and subsequent disposal within limits, finding no deliberate breach.

What did the court decide?

The contempt petition is dismissed with no order as to cost.

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye Vs Dr. O… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

CP12-13

¶2

… 1 …

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

¶4

CONTEMPT PETITION NO.12 OF 2013 IN

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.281/2006

¶6

KASHINATH JAIRAM SHETYE, major, occupation : Service, resident of 102, Raj Excellency, Patto, Ribandar, Tiswadi, Goa. … PETITIONER.

¶7

V/s

¶8

Dr. O. P. MISHRA, Major in age Dy. Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarters, Panjim, Goa. … Respondent.

¶9

Mr. Ryan Menezes, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Prachi Sawant, Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶11

CORAM :- U. V. BAKRE, J. DATE : 18th February, 2014.

¶12

ORAL ORDER :

¶13

Heard Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on

¶14

behalf of the petitioner and Ms. Sawant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent.

¶15

2. The petitioner has prayed for initiating proceedings

¶16

against the respondent to Inquire into the acts of contempt, for action, including suitable punishment, to be taken with respect to such acts that constitute contempt of Court in accordance with law.

¶17

3. An application dated 07/07/2008 was made under Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act') to the State Public Information Officer, Superintendent of Police (Traffic) and also inspection of the said documents was asked for. The application on point no. 3 was transferred to Superintendent of Police HQ, PIO (WC's) Police Headquarters, Panaji, Goa as custodian of information with a request to furnish the information to the petitioner on 10/07/2008. By order dated 07/08/2008, the Public Information Officer rejected the said application dated 07/07/2008 insofar as the information at serial no. 3 was concerned. Aggrieved by the said order dated 07/08/2008 of the Public Information Officer, the petitioner filed First Appeal before the First Appellate Authority, Inspector General of Police. The Fist Appellate Authority, by order dated 11/09/2008, upheld the order of the Public Information Officer and thus, rejected the information. Aggrieved by the order dated 11/09/2008 of the First Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed Second Appeal before the Second Appellate Authority, Goa Information

¶18

Commission. The Second Appellate Authority dismissed the Second Appeal. Aggrieved by the order dated 28/04/2008 of the Second Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 325/2009 before this Court. This Court, by order dated 14/12/2012, quashed and set aside the orders of the First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority and directed the First Appellate authority to decide First Appeals No. 56/2008 and 57/2008 afresh in the light of the observations made thereunder. The First Appeals, as per the Act, had to be heard and decided within 30 days and maximum of 45 days by reasons in writing for delay for more than 30 days.

¶19

4. According to the petitioner, the matter was heard on 12/04/2013 without making any application for extension of time to the High Court and the matter was decided behind the back of the petitioner on 23/04/2013. The petitioner further alleged that the order was not pronounced in the open Court and was communicated through the Police Inspector, Old Goa Police Station on 25/04/2013. Reliance was placed on the judgment dated 24/08/2006 of this Court in the case of “ Pradeep Sangodkar Vs. State of Goa and District Consumer, Dispute Redressal Forum, Alto Porvorim” (Writ Petition No. 281/2006).

¶20

5. By way of affidavit-in-reply, the respondent, who was then Deputy Inspector General of Police stated as follows :

¶21

That there is no breach of the order and that the respondent has complied with the order dated 14/12/2012 of this Court; that the respondent has highest regards for the orders passed by this Court and that in the event he has committed any breach of order, he tenders unconditional apology; that the copy of the judgment dated 14/12/2012 passed by this Court was received in the office of Inspector General of Police, Goa on 08/01/2013 and then the Appellate Authority I.G.P., Goa issued notices to the petitioner informing him that the date of hearing was fixed on 24/01/2013 at 12.00 p.m.; that the notices were served on the petitioner through P.I., Old Goa Police Station and service report was filed on 24/01/2013; that the petitioner requested for an adjournment on the ground that the time limit between issuance of the notice and date of hearing was very short; that the First Appellate Authority, therefore, postponed the hearing to 07/02/2013 at 12.00 p.m. and notices of the same were sent to the petitioner on 24/01/2013 through P.I.,Old Goa Police Station and service report was filed on 31/01/2013; that at the relevant time, the post of Appellate Authority was held by I.G.P., Goa; that the then I.G.P., Goa was transferred to Delhi on

¶22

31/01/2013 and all the hearings in First Appeals remained unheard in the absence of a regular I.G.P; that since there was a long pending list of First Appeals, a proposal was moved to the Government of Goa by the Police Department to appoint the D.I.G.P. as the First Appellate Authority and the Government of Goa vide order dated 23/03/2013 appointed D.I.G.P. as First Appellate Authority for the Goa Police Department instead of I.G.P. under the Act; that after D.I.G.P. was appointed as First Appellate Authority, all the pending appeals under the Act were taken into consideration promptly and fresh notices were issued to the petitioner in First Appeals no. 56/2008 and 57/2008 on 01/04/2013 informing the petitioner that the date of hearing was fixed on 12/04/2013 through the Old Goa Police Station; that the petitioner was heard on 12/04/2013 and the order was pronounced in the open Court; that the order was signed on 23/04/2013; that thus, the matter was decided by the authority within 30 days from the date of appointment as the First Appellate Authority, D.I.G.P., Goa.

¶23

6. Mr. Menezes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Act was enacted in order to secure to the citizens access to information under the control of public authorities, and, therefore, the time limits have been fixed

¶24

CP12-13

¶25

for various actions, at various levels. He submitted that there was no application moved by the respondent for extension of time. He further submitted that in terms of the judgment of this High Court in Writ Petition No. 281/2006, there was inordinate and unexplained delay in pronouncement of the order. He further submitted that the petitioner had nothing to do with the internal changes in the office of the respondent like transfers, etc. and as per the Act, the appeals had to be decided within 30 days and maximum of 45 days for which reasons had to be assigned. He, therefore, submitted that there is deliberate disobedience of the provisions of law and the orders passed by the High Court.

¶26

7. Per contra , Ms. Sawant, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.1, submitted that the present respondent was not the Appellate Authority till 23/03/2013 and that the First Appellate Authority I.G.P., Goa was transferred to Delhi on 31/01/2013. She submitted that the Government of Goa, by order dated 23/03/2013 appointed D.I.G.P. as the First Appellate Authority. She submitted that within the prescribed time limit as from the date of appointment as First Appellate Authority, the respondent disposed of the said appeals. She submitted that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the respondent to commit

¶27

CP12-13

¶28

breach of any order. She submitted that there is absolutely no substance in Contempt Petition, which deserves to be rejected.

¶29

8. This Court by order dated 14/12/2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 325/2009, while setting aside the impugned orders dated 11/09/2008 and 28/04/2009 passed by the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Court respectively, directed the said Authorities to decide the said appeals afresh. However, no time limit as such, was fixed by this Court. The respondent was appointed as the First Appellate Authority in terms of order dated 23/03/2013. It is a fact that the said appeals were disposed of by the respondent. In the event, there is any breach, the respondent has tendered unconditional apology. A perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent clearly reveals that there is no contempt committed by the respondent and more particularly, there is no willful or deliberate breach of any order or provision of law.

¶30

9. Therefore, there is absolutely no substance in the present petition, which stands dismissed.

¶31

SMA

¶32

U. V. BAKRE, J.

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. Dr. O. P. Mishra Dy. Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Kashinath Jairam Shetye v. Dr. O. P. Mishra Dy. Inspector General of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Alfredo Dos Remedious Afonso Vs Mr. Gustavo Andre Da Piedade Afonso and Anr.

Shri K. Ganeshan and Anr., Vs Shri Shambu D. Gauns and Anr.

Mr. Pascoal Fernandes Vs Mr. Paulo Manuel Fernandes Rep. by P.O.A. Mrs. Rita Fernandes and 2 Ors.

M/S M.R.F. Limited through Its Attorney Shri. Michael Gracias, Senior General Manager Vs Goa Mrf Employees Union Rep. by Its President and 4 Ors.

The Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs Shri Gurudas Sadanand Borkar

M/S. Sterling Abodes Rep. by Mrs. Lalita S. Kamat and Anr., Vs Mrs. Maria Celina Lobo (Since Dec.) and 2 Ors.