Devayani Shridhar Mhatre v. State Of Maharashtra And ORS.

BDP-SPSBHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8956 OF 2017 by BHARAT DASHARATH PANDIT Date: 2024.03.08 19:19:17 +0530 Devayani Shridhar Mhatre ] Age 35, Occ: Housewife ] Khanda Colony, B-4/0.2 New ] Panvel, Housing Prabhodan ] Society, Sec-II, Dist: Raigad ] .... Petitioner.

V/s 1] State of Maharashtra ] Through the Govt. Pleader, ] Office at High Court, Mumbai ] ] 2] B. T. Desai, ] Age: Adult, Occu: Service ] Right to Information Officer, ] and Assistant Administrator Officer] Women & Childrens Welfare Dept, ] Dist: Alibaug ] ] 3] V. T. Mane, ] Age:- Adult, Occ: Service, ] Address at First Appellate ] Authority (RTI & BAK) ] Deputy Chief Officer : Raigad ] ....Respondents.

Mr. B. A. Lawate for the Petitioner.

Mr. B.V. Samant, Addl G.P. a/w Mr. S.P. Shetye, AGP for the Respondent No.1.

CORAM: A.S. CHANDURKAR & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ.

DATE: 7th MARCH, 2024 1/3

ORAL JUDGMENT: (Per A.S. Chandurkar, J.) 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard learned Counsel for the parties.

2] The grievance of the Petitioner arises under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, Act of 2005) since the Petitioner is not satisfied with the information supplied to her pursuant to the order passed by the First Appellate Authority on 19/5/2020. 3] The Petitioner on 1/2/2017 sought information from the Chief Executive Officer, Women and Child Welfare Department, Zilla Parishad, Alibaug with regard to the marks obtained and qualification acquired by certain candidates who were selected on 1/7/2008 on the post of Anganwadi Supervisor. The Information Officer refused to grant such information and being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The First Appellate Authority on 22/5/2020 directed such information to be supplied to the Petitioner. Accordingly, this information was provided to the Petitioner. The grievance of the Petitioner is that the information 2/3

provided is incomplete.

4] It is seen that when the present writ petition was filed, the only prayer made by the Petitioner was for seeking documents and information as per the application dated 1/2/2017. During pendency of the writ petition, the First Appeal has been decided and information has been supplied to the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner contends that she is not satisfied with such information as furnished, we find that recourse can be had by the Petitioner to the provisions of Section 18(1)(e) of the Act of 2005.

5] Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by permitting the Petitioner to raise a grievance in terms of Section 18(1)(e) of the Act of 2005 within four weeks from today. If such grievance is raised, it would be open for the State Information Commission to consider the matter in accordance with law. Rule is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

[ JITENDRA JAIN, J. ] [ A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.] 3/3