Dismissed

Peter Dominik Colaso v. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Bombay HC11 Sept 2018WP/7939/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought directions for the implementation of an appeal order under the Right to Information Act regarding the demolition of a drainage pipeline. The High Court of Bombay, after considering submissions on jurisdiction and maintenance, held that it was not inclined to entertain the petition and disposed of it.

What did the court decide?

The petition for directions seeking implementation of the RTI appeal order was not entertained.

Peter Dominik Colaso Vs Vasai Virar Municipal… — RTI and Transparency | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

WP7939_18.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.7939 OF 2018

¶5

Peter Dominik Colaso Versus Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through its Commissioner and others

¶6

… Respondents

¶7

Mr. Prashant P. More for Petitioner.

¶8

Ms Swati Sagvekar for Respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. D. V. Sawant i/b. Mr. Vilas L. Indulkar for Respondent No.3.

¶9

CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL, ACTING CJ & R. G. KETKAR, J. DATE : SEPTEMBER 11, 2018

¶10

P.C.

¶11

The Counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner has made several representations on continuous basis to the Competent Authority about breaking of drainage pipeline by respondent No.3, who occupies property adjoining to the petitioner's. A police complaint was also made by the petitioner. Ultimately, Designated Officer under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'R.T.I. Act') dealt with the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(1) of the R.T.I. Act in exercise of appellate power. The authority concerned directed the In-charge Assistant Commissioner of the concerned Ward to take action against the person, who had demolished the pipeline laid by the Corporation, and to intimate the action taken report within 10 days to the petitioner.

1 / 3

WP7939_18.doc

The Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the order was passed on 07.03.2018, no action has been taken by the Corporation. He, therefore, seeks necessary direction of this Court for implementation of that order.

¶16

The Counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has referred to

¶17

the definition of “information” under Section 2(f) as also provisions of

¶18

Section 11 of the R.T.I. Act. Section 2(f) of the Act reads thus,

¶19

“2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶20

(f) 'information' means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force;

¶21

Mr. Sawant submits that respondent No.3 was not given notice. He further submits that if any decision is to be taken in respect of the subject matter then the authority has to be designated one under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and not under the R.T.I. Act. The Counsel submits that the issue goes to the root of the matter with regard to the maintainability of the proceedings before the designated officer under

2 / 3

WP7939_18.doc

the R.T.I. Act.

We have perused the record and considered the submissions advanced. In the facts, we are not inclined to entertain the Petition and issue direction as sought by the petitioner. Needless to mention that the designated officers and the authorities under the R.T.I. Act shall exercise jurisdiction strictly in accordance with law. Petition is accordingly disposed of.

¶27

R. G. KETKAR, J. ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶28

Minal Parab

¶29

3 / 3

Peter Dominik Colaso v. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Peter Dominik Colaso v. Vasai Virar Municipal Corporation through Its Commissioner 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

Mr. Yaseen Shaikh @ Bachhu Bahi Vs the Municipal Commissioner, Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation and Ors.

Smt. Vishalakshmi Rama Safalya, Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Satish Gajanan Mulik Vs Pune Municipal Corporation, through Its Commissioner and Ors.

Shri. Dhanraj N. Aswani Vs Pune Municipal Corporation through the Commissioner and Anr.

D. R. Services Thru Prop. Shri. Rajkumar B Dhakane Vs Shri. Diwakar Raote , Hon'Ble Minister for Transport , and Ors.