This bench held that an alternative remedy exists under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Consequently, the Court declined to interfere and disposed of the writ petition without granting relief.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4009 OF 2015
LAXMAN SUDAMRAO PAWAR VERSUS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Chavan AGP for Respondents: Mrs S.A.Dhumal
CORAM : R. M. BORDE & V.K. JADHAV, JJ. Dated: April 13, 2015
PER COURT :-
It is open for the petitioner to avail of the remedy provided under Section 20 of The Right to Information Act, 2005. There is no need to cause interference in the writ petition. Writ Petition is disposed of.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. )
( R. M. BORDE, J. )
aaa/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner should be directed to avail remedy under Section 20 of RTI Act in lieu of writ jurisdiction.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LAXMAN SUDAMRAO PAWAR
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
R. M. BORDE
V.K. JADHAV
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
