Sushila Shantaram Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Sushila Shantaram Patil vs the State of Maharashtra through Its Secretary and Others — Bombay HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petitioner relegated to the alternate remedy of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act against the impugned communication dated 09.01.2026; any such appeal filed before the Appellate Authority to be decided within 30 days from the date of filing on its own merit and in accordance with law; time spent prosecuting the writ petition to be taken into account while considering the aspect of delay.

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's writ petition challenging the refusal (communication dated 09.01.2026) by the Information Officer of Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule to supply documents sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 should be adjudicated in this Court, or whether the petitioner should be relegated to the alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the petitioner's application was made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the court found that against the refusal to supply information the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition is disposed of by relegating the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of filing an appeal (under Section 19 of the RTI Act) as above.

Key takeaways

Direction that if the petitioner prefers an appeal challenging the impugned communication before the Appellate Authority, it shall be decided within 30 days from the date of filing of the appeal, on its own merit and in accordance with law.ratio¶21
The time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this writ petition shall be taken into account while considering the aspect of delay.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench (order per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.; bench comprising Sandipkumar C. More and Abasaheb D. Shinde JJ.), by order dated 04.02.2026 in Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2026 (Sushila Shantaram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary and Others), disposed of the petitioner's challenge to the communication dated 09.01.2026 issued by the Information Officer of Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule refusing to supply documents prayed for. Observing that the petitioner's application was made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and that she possesses an alternate efficacious remedy of appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, the court relegated the petitioner to that remedy (her counsel having undertaken to pursue it), and directed that any appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority challenging the impugned communication be decided within 30 days from the date of filing on its own merit and in accordance with law, with the time spent prosecuting the writ petition to be taken into account while considering delay.

1

932-wp-1250-2026.odt

2026:BHC-AUG:5200-DB

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

932 WRIT PETITION NO. 1250 OF 2026

Sushila Shantaram Patil

VERSUS

The State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary And Others

Mr. Arvind K. Tiwari, Advocate for the Petitioner Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondents/State

CORAM : SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE AND ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, JJ.

DATED : FEBRUARY 04, 2026

ORDER (Per Abasaheb D. Shinde J.):

By this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the communication dated 09.01.2026 issued by the Information Officer from Respondent No.2-Scheduled Tribe Certificate Scrutiny Committee, Dhule thereby refusing to supply documents as prayed for.

We find that the application moved by the petitioner was under Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “RTI Act”). Against the said refusal to supply information, the petitioner has an alternate efficacious remedy of filing Appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would pursue the said alternate remedy. However, he seeks direction that if in case the appeal is preferred by the petitioner, the same may be directed to be decided expeditiously.

Narwade/

2

932-wp-1250-2026.odt

In view of the same, we dispose of this Writ Petition by relegating

the petitioner to avail the alternate remedy of filing an Appeal as above.

We, however, direct that in case the petitioner preferred an Appeal challenging the impugned communication before the Appellate Authority, the same be decided within a period of 30 days from the date of filing of the Appeal on its own merit and in accordance with law.

Needless to state that the time spent by the petitioner in prosecuting this Writ Petition shall be taken into account while considering the aspect of delay.

With these directions, writ petition stands disposed of.

[ABASAHEB D. SHINDE, J.] [SANDIPKUMAR C. MORE, J.]

Narwade/