Disposed

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Bombay HC9 Dec 2014PIL/33/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this PIL, the High Court directed that instead of deciding disputed questions at that stage, the petitioner should obtain relevant data under the RTI Act and approach the court with concrete facts if a case for inquiry emerges.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner allowed to obtain relevant data under the Right to Information Act and approach the court again with concrete facts.

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale Vs the State of Maharashtra… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

(1) PIL No. 33 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

¶3

Public Interest Litigation No. 33 of 2014

¶4

Vitthal s/o. Mahapurao Bhosale, Age : 60 years, Occupation : Retired, R/o. Varsha Niwas, Vikram Nagar, Bank Colony, Latur, Taluka & District : Latur. .. Petitioner.

¶5

versus

¶6

The State of Maharashtra, Through the Principal Secretary, School Education & Sports Department, Maharashtra State, Mantralaya, Mumbai-32, & others.

¶7

.. Respondents.

¶8

Mr. R.D. Biradar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mrs. A.V. Gondhalekar, Assistant Government Pleader, for respondent nos.1, 3, 4 and 7.

¶10

Respondent no.2 deleted as per court's order dated 2-4-2014.

¶11

Mr. V.C. Patil, Advocate, holding for Mr. U.B. Bondar, Advocate, for respondent no.5.

¶12

Mr. S.G. Rudrawar, Advocate, for respondent nos.6 and 8.

¶13

(2) PIL No. 33 of 2014

¶14

CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

¶15

DATE : 9TH DECEMBER 2014

¶16

COURT'S ORDER (Per B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) :

¶17

1. Heard for some time.

¶18

Several disputed questions arise. The petitioner has pointed out a report submitted by Dhanmode Committee. He has also stated that without registering offence, the Police authorities procured specimen signature and thereafter have closed the matter.

¶19

Respective Counsel appearing for respondents deny all adverse allegations. Adv. Mr. Rudrawar has filed affidavit on behalf of respondent nos.6 and 8. It is taken on record.

¶20

4. The matter is registered as PIL.

¶21

During arguments, Adv. Mr. Biradar has attempted to urge that the person against whom grievance is sought to be made, has indulged in similar malpractices elsewhere. We do not wish to go into disputed questions at this juncture. The petitioner has got some documents with him. Similarly, he has received reply affidavit tendered by respondent nos.6 and 8, as also respondent no.5. He can obtain necessary information under Right to Information Act, and then approach competent court / this court with concrete facts.

¶22

(3) PIL No. 33 of 2014

¶23

In this situation, presently interest of justice can be met with by allowing petitioner to obtain relevant data under Right to Information Act, and by making suitable representation to concerned respondents. If such informations is asked for from Government authorities, the Government authorities shall supply it in accordance with provisions of Right to Information Act, to the petitioner, within stipulated time.

¶24

With liberty to the petitioner to approach again, if thereafter he finds that a case for enquiry / action is made out, we dispose of the present PIL. No costs.

¶25

( A.M. BADAR ) ( B.P. DHARMADHIKARI ) JUDGE JUDGE

¶26

puranik / PIL33.14

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vitthal Mahapurao Bhosale v. the State of Maharashtra and Others

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

Devichand Yadavrao Bobade and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Basavraj Manmathappa Nagthane Vs the State of Maharshtra and Others

Sahebrao Gajmal Patil Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Bhimrao Sambhaji Lakhe and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sanjay Bhaskar Kale Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

Dharavi Baitt Bachao Samiti and Anr. Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Dr. Babulal K. Shah Vs the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Hrishikesh Rajendra Bhalerao Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

M/S Vinayak and Co. Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Neelvastu Holiday Resorts and Properties Aurangabad Vs the State of Mah and Anr.

Santosh Ramlal Thole Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gulam Ahmed Gulam Mohammad Vs the Municipal Corp. Abad and Ors.

Arun Babulal Bharuka and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

The Village Panchayat, Kaudgaon Thr Sarpanch Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others