Dada Gulab Deshmukh v. The State Of Maharashtra And Another

2025:BHC-AUG:2045 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD 928 WRIT PETITION NO. 6063 OF 2014 DADA GULAB DESHMUKH

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER ...

Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. Shaikh Mazhar A. Jahagirdar AGP for Respondents-State : Ms. Minkashi Sangit ...

CORAM : MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.

Dated : January 21, 2025 PER COURT :- 1.

In the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Nashik.

2.

According to the petitioner, he had moved an application dated 09.04.2012 seeking information from the State Information Officer / Sub-Divisional Engineer, Public Works Sub-Division, Mahad, Dist. Raigad. He has filed the said application seeking information about Points No. 1 to 24 mentioned in the application. The information which he had sought is pertaining to the period from 01.04.2021 to 31.01.2012. He has requested to provide the information by registered post. Since he did not receive any information as requested in his application within the period of 30

-2days, he has filed an Appeal on 11.06.2012 before the First Appellate Authority i.e. Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Mahad, Dist. Raigad. The appeal filed by him was decided by the First Appellate Authority by it's order dated 13.09.2012. In the order, it was observed that the present petitioner was summoned for hearing of the appeal. He was personally present for the hearing and after considering his request and hearing him in detail, the First Appellate Authority decided the appeal observing that the information requested in the application is available and capable of being given to him. Therefore, it was decided that the information should be provided to him. However, considering the shortage of trained staff available in the Office of the State Information Commission, the certain time was granted for giving the information to the Authority. In the order, the appellant was directed to remain present before the Public Information Officer and after scrutinizing the information, he was directed to point out exactly which information should be made available to him.

3.

According to learned Advocate for the petitioner, though the order came to be passed in his favour, but no information was supplied to him. Inspite of directions given by the First Appellate Authority to provide the information, petitioner had not received any

-3information. Therefore, he has preferred second appeal under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 31.10.2012. After hearing present petitioner, the Second Appellate Authority i.e. State Information Commission has decided the appeal and partly allowed the same vide it's order dated 26.03.2014. Since the second appeal has been allowed partly, he has challenged the order in the present writ petition.

4.

According to him, though the First Appellate Authority has allowed his appeal and the directions were given to provide him the necessary information, however that order has not been complied with. Similarly, the Second Appellate Authority has not appreciated the fact that the petitioner has sought the information about one and the same subject and not about the different subject. In fact, information in Points No. 1 to 24 demanded by him pertain to same subject. Therefore, the order passed by the State Information Commission is not an appropriate order and it has been passed without application of his mind. The Appellate Authority has got himself confused about the subjects and the issues raised in the application.

5.

As can be seen from the order of the Second Appellate Authority he has passed an order, wherein it has been stated that as

-4per Rule 3(c) of The Maharashtra Right to Information (Amendment) Rules, 2012, the application is to be restricted to one subject and 150 words. The information sought should not be beyond 150 words and based on different subjects therefore, in view of the limitation imposed on the right of a person seeking information, the information sought by the petitioner was based on more than one subject and beyond 150 words, therefore, it was directed that the information regarding first issue in his application should be made available to him within 15 days and without charging for the same, accordingly, the second appeal has been disposed of.

6.

Learned AGP for respondents-State has opposed the prayer made by the petitioner and has relied upon The Maharashtra State Information Rules, 2012, more particularly, she has relied upon Rule 3(a), which reads thus :

"[३-अ.

एकव㔿नंतीअ्䵌 केळएकाव㔿षयाशीसंबंध✿तअसणे. - अध✿व㔿नयमाचᩍया कलम६अन⡍येमाव㔿 तीव㔿मळण⍍यासाठीचालेखीव㔿नंतीअ्䵌 एकाचव㔿षयाशीसंबंध✿त असााआण⌿णत⑍यातस साारणपणेदीडशेपे्䵌ाअध✿कशबⱍदनसाेत. अ्䵌 दाराला एकापे्䵌ाअध✿कव㔿षयांचीमाव㔿 ती ीअसेलतरतोत⑍याकर〿रतास㡍तं्䵔अ्䵌 करील:

परंतु, एकापे्䵌ाअध✿कव㔿षयांशीसंबंध✿तव㔿नंतीअ्䵌 केलाअसेलअशा्䵚करणी, ्䵌नमाव㔿 तीअध✿कारी, केळपव㔿 ल㉍याव㔿षयाशीसंबंध✿तव㔿नंतीब्䵌लचमाव㔿 तीदेईल आण⌿णइतर्䵚त⑍येकव㔿षयाकर〿रतास㡍तं्䵔व㔿नंतीअ्䵌 करण⍍याचास्䵤ा, अ्䵌 दाराला देईल.]"

7.

Upon going through the above rule, I find that the order

-5passed by the Second Appellate Authority is very much in consonance with the said rule. The order passed by the State Information Commission, being in consonance with the rules, he has not committed any sort of error in passing the impugned order. The Second Appellate Authority has passed appropriate order in accordance and within the framework of rules. Therefore, it does not need any interference.

8.

In view of the observations made above, I do not find any error in the impugned order. Hence, following order.

ORDER

Writ Petition is dismissed.

(MANJUSHA DESHPANDE, J.) Omkar Joshi