Allowed

Shri Vinod Anandrao Ambadkar v. State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Amravati and Others

Bombay HC20 Mar 2024WP/8508/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patrolling the High Court allowed Writ Petition No.8508 of 2018 and quashed the order of the State Information Commissioner, Amravati allowing a second appeal that imposed a cost of Rs. 5000 on the respondent, finding that the disputed information was not within the Municipal Council's domain. No order as to costs.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 14-8-2018 passed by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

Shri Vinod Anandrao Ambadkar Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2024)

¶1

1 WP-8508-2018.odt

¶2

2024:BHC-NAG:3445-DB

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO.8508 OF 2018

¶5

(Shri Vinod Anandrao Ambadkar VERSUS State Information Commissioner, Amravati and
others)

¶6

Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's orders of direction Court's or Judge's order
and the Registrar's orders.

¶7

Smt. S.W. Deshspande, Counsel for Petitioner.
Shri D.V. Chauhan, Government Pleader for Respondent No.1.
Shri S.S. Bhalerao, Counsel for Respondent No.4.

¶8

CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

¶9

DATE : 20th MARCH, 2024

¶10

P. C. :

¶11

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondent No.1, and the learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶12

2.By this petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 14-11-2018
passed by respondent No.1-State Information Commissioner, Amravati in Second
Appeal No.1077 of 2016, whereby the Second Appeal filed by the respondent
No.2 seeking the information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 came to
be allowed and imposed a cost of Rs. 5000/-on him.

¶13

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the
communication dated 9-8-2018 issued by the Information Officer of respondent
No.4 to Shri. Niranjan Naitam (respondent No.2), whereby informed that the
information which was sought by respondent No.2 in respect of the shops is
neither owned by the respondent-Municipal Council nor has come within their
domain. Therefore, no information is available to them.

¶14

2 WP-8508-2018.odt

¶15

4.In view of this, it seems that the information sought by respondent No.2 is
not within the domain of the Municipal Council. We find substance in the
argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner in that regard. Hence,
considering the same, it appears that the passing of the order by the Appellate
Authority is contrary to the facts on record and therefore the same cannot be
sustained in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside.

¶16

5. That being so, we deem it appropriate to pass the following order :

¶17

6. The petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 14-8-2018 passed by respondent No.1-State Information Commissioner, Amravati is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.

¶18

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.)

¶19

 (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.)

¶20

LANJEWAR

Shri Vinod Anandrao Ambadkar v. State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Amravati and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Vinod Anandrao Ambadkar v. State Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Amravati 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

M/S. Aditya Construction Company Thr. Authorized Signatory Nilesh Borekar Vs Municipal Council, Katol, Thr. Chief Officer, Nagpur and Others

Ankush Shikshan Sanstha, Thr. Secretary, Sudhakar Bapurao Jagdale and Another Vs Dilip Kumar Merkap and Others

Deepak S/O. Marotrao Jangle and Another Vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary for Rural Development Dept., Mumbai and Ors.

Ambesh Ramdulare Shrivastav vs the State of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary for Urban Development Department, Mumbai and Another

Sadhana W/O Madhukar Choudhari @ Sadhana D/O Hari Dodke, Sarpanch, Grampanchayat, Gevara (Khurd) Vs the Collector, Chandrapur and Others

Shri Rajabhau S/O Moreshwarrao Chichate Vs the State of Maharashtra, Department of School Eduation, through Its Secretary, Mumbai and 5 Others