Surekha Ramesh Narkhede v. Anupam Kaushik, Central Public Information Officer Bank Of India

Digitally signed by VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU Date:

2024.04.15 10:55:54 +0530 VARSHA VIJAY RAJGURU varsha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 152 OF 2022 Surekha Ramesh Narkhede ... Petitioner vs.

Mr. Anupam Kaushik, Central Public Information Officer, Bank of India ... Respondent Mr. Yogesh Patki i/b. Mainak Adhikary, for Petitioner. Mr. Anant B. Shinde, AGP for State.

CORAM : GAURI GODSE, J.

DATED : 20th MARCH 2024 P.C. :- 1.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record an order dated 11th August 2022 passed by the Central Information Commissioner deciding a complaint made by the petitioner for noncompliance of the order dated 7th September 2016. The Contempt Petition alleges a breach of the same order dated 7th September 2016. It appears that the petitioner had already filed a complaint before the Central Information Commissioner making the same allegations that are made in the present Contempt Petition. The present Contempt Petition is filed on 13th January 2022. During the Page no. 1 of 3

pendency of this Contempt Petition, the Central Information Commissioner passed an order on 11th August 2022, issuing directions for compliance of the order dated 7th September 2016. 2.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents submits that he has filed an affidavit-in-reply dated 6th July 2023, stating that the order is already complied pursuant to the directions issued on 11th August 2022. He relies upon Exhibit-E to his affidavit-in-reply and submits that the order is already complied with and a list of documents supplied is mentioned in the letter dated 27th September 2022. He on instructions submits that directions issued in order dated 11th August 2022 is complied with by supplying documents and a copy of the same, shall be uploaded in the Commission's web portal as directed by order dated 11th August 2022. He on instructions submits that the said compliance shall be done within two weeks from today. The statement made on behalf of the respondent is accepted.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that though he has filed a reply stating that the orders are complied with, he has objection to the maintainability of the Contempt Petition. He submits that the Contempt Petition is not maintainable against the orders passed by the Central Information Commissioner.

Page no. 2 of 3

3.

This petition makes an allegation of non-compliance of the order dated 7th September 2016. The petitioner had already made a similar complaint before the Central Information Commissioner and his complaint has been entertained and necessary directions are already issued during the pendency of the Contempt Petition. The said directions were issued by order 11th August 2022, a copy of which is taken on record. In view of the said directions issued on 11th August 2022 and affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent, I do not see any reason to entertain this Contempt Petition. 4.

It is clarified that the objection on maintainability of the Contempt Petition is not examined, in view of the order dated 11th August 2022 and affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondent. 5.

For the aforesaid reasons, the Contempt Petition is rejected. (GAURI GODSE, J.) Page no. 3 of 3