Chandrakant Baburao Adsule v. The State Of Maharashtra And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 7609 OF 2014 Chandrakant s/o Baburao Adsule, Age: 61 years, Occ: Nil, As Pensioner, R/o. Shahu Chowk, Meghraj Nagar, Latur, Tq. & Dist. Latur.

...Petitioner

versus 1.

The State of Maharashtra, Through, the Secretary, Urban and Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

2.

The State Information Commissioner, Maharashtra State, Administrative Building, Mumbai-32.

3.

First Appellate Office cum Dy. Director, Nagarparishad Prashad Prashasan Sanchlanalaya Government Transport Service Building, 3rd floor, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 030.

4.

Public Information Officer cum Asstt.Director Nagarparishad Prashad Prashasan Sanchlanalaya Government Transport Service Building, 3rd floor, Sir Pochkhanwala Road, Worli, Mumbai-400 030.

...Respondents

.....

Mr. Tukaram M. Venjane, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. S.P. Dound, A.G.P. for respondents.

.....

CORAM : N.W. SAMBRE, J.

DATE : 15TH APRIL, 2015

-2ORAL ORDER :

Having heard Mr. Venjane, learned Counsel for the petitioner for some time, it is noticed that State Information Commissioner, Mumbai, while dealing with the Appeal No.208/3716/02 has recorded satisfaction that the information has been furnished, which was sought by the appellant. The said observations are made in second appeal by the State Information Commissioner, Mumbai on 30/11/2009.

2.

The information that was sought by the present petitioner was in relation to pay scales applicable to the posts in the category of City Engineer and Deputy Engineer/Assistant Engineer sanctioned for 'A' class Municipalities.

3.

The Government Information Officer, by his communication dated 12/11/2008, has furnished the information in relation to pay scale of Municipal Engineer and Deputy Engineer. 4.

Being aggrieved thereto, an appeal was preferred and first appellate authority has not decided the appeal within time and as such, second appeal came to be preferred.

-35.

Perusal of the order reflects that same is vague and has not specifically mentioned the date, on which the information sought was supplied to the petitioner.

6.

In view thereof, the order dated 30/11/2009 is quashed and set aside and the second appeal is restored to the file of State Information Commissioner, Mumbai, who is directed to decide the same, expeditiously.

7.

The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

[ N.W. SAMBRE, J. ] Tupe/15.04.15