This court considered a writ petition filed under Article 226 challenging the refusal to provide voluminous records under the Right To Information Act. The court held that since the requested information was voluminous, no High Court interference was called for, and remedies under the RTI Act were available to the petitioner.
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.
wp284016.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.2840 OF 2016
Subhash Ramdhan Pawar Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & others
Respondents
Mr.A.M.Hajare, advocate holding for Mr.R.J.Nirmal, advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Joshi, A.G.P. for Respondents No.1 & 2. Mr.A.D.Aghav, advocate for Respondent No.3. Mr.D.B.Sonawane -Respondent No.3 is present - party-in-person.
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI, JJ. DATE : 12th December, 2017
PER COURT:
1 The petitioner/complainant is making a complaint in respect of failure on the part of Respondent No.3 to provide certain information, as requested by him. The complainant has asked for voluminous record from the office of Respondent No.3. It was informed to the petitioner that since the information requested is voluminous, he may examine the record in the office. Respondent No.3 also expressed willingness to furnish the information after availability of funds.
2 In pursuance of the bailable warrant issued by this Court, Respondent No.3 is present in the Court. The Residential Deputy Collector has presented reply. Same is taken on record.
2 It does appear that the petitioner/complainant has asked voluminous record. The purpose, for which such
wp284016.odt
{2}
voluminous record is requested, is not forthcoming. In the event of failure on the part of Respondent No.3, remedy is available to the petitioner, under the provisions of Right To Information Act and he may have liberty to avail of the remedies available in law. In exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, no interference is called for.
3 Writ Petition stands dismissed.
SMT.VIBHA KANKANWADI R.M.BORDE JUDGE JUDGE
adb/wp284016
2 issues framed by the court
Whether High Court should interfere under Article 226 despite complainant's request for voluminous records under RTI Act.
Whether remedy is available to the petitioner under Right To Information Act instead of High Court intervention.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Subhash Ramdhan Pawar
State of Maharashtra
Residential Deputy Collector
R.M. Borde
Vibha Kankanwadi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
