Shaikh Rais Bashir And Others v. The State Of Maharashtra Through Pirncipal Secretary And Others

2024:BHC-AUG:22089-DB - 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD 962 WRIT PETITION NO. 9917 OF 2024 SHAIKH RAIS BASHIR AND OTHERS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS Mr.S.S.Bora, Advocate for the Petitioners.

Mr.V.M.Kagne, AGP for the Respondent/State.

( CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE AND Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, JJ.) DATE : SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 PER COURT :

1.

After hearing the learned Advocate for the Petitioners and the learned AGP, it is obvious that the Tahsildar, Tahsil Office, Aurangabad, Shri Ramesh Mundlod, has no explanation as to why the directions issued by the Chief Information Commissioner dated 29.09.2023, have not been complied with for a year. 2.

The record reveals that the Tahsildar is resisting the divulging of the information. Costs granted by the State Information Commissioner, have been paid, but the records are not being supplied.

- 2 - So also, the Chief Information Commissioner had observed in paragraph 'U' [at page No.35-m] as under :- "m.

्ቚस्तुत्ቚकरणात, त्ቅारदारयांनात्यांच्यामाहितीअቌኋानवयेआवश्यकअसलेल्यामाहिती संदቝኋातीलफेरफारचाअभिቝኋलेखशोधघेऊनीउपलब्धोतनाी. ीगंቝኋीरबाबआे. कारण त्ቅारदारयांनीमागणीकेलेल्यामाहितीसंदቝኋातीलअभिቝኋलेखाकायमस्वरुपीቌኋतनकरून ठेवावयाचाआे.

असेअसतानाअसाफेरफारचाअभिቝኋलेखगाळझालाअसल्याचेसकृतदशनी हिनदशनासयेतआे.

अतःया्ቚकरणीवतमानቌኋनमाहितीअधिधकारीयांनीआयोगाचेआदेश्ቚा्቎ ोताचपंधराहिदवसाच्याआतकायालयातीलदोनकमचारीयांचागटतयारकरूनत्ቅारदारास आवश्यकअसलेल्याफेरफारसंधिचकेचाकसोशीनेशोधघ्यावा. अशीकायवाीकरतानारोቌኋनामा ठेवण्यातयेऊनदैनंहिदनकामकाቌኋाचीनोंदत्यातघेण्यातयावी. याकायवाीदरम्यानउपलब्ध झालेलीमाहितीत्ቅारदारासकलम७(६) नुसारहिवनामूल्यउपलब्धकरुन्ቕावी.

मा्ቔअशा कायवाीनंतरीमाहितीउपलब्धनझाल्यासमाहितीउपलब्धनसल्याचीबाब(उपलब्ध वस्तुቝኌस्Bतीस ቌኋसेअभिቝኋलेखगाळझाला/ न्ቖझाला/ माहितीसंदቝኋातीलअभिቝኋलेख कायालयाच्याअभिቝኋलेखाचाቝኋागनाी/ माहितीसंदቝኋातीलअभिቝኋलेखआवश्यककायवाीकरता वरिर्቗कायालयातसादरकेला/ न्यायालयीन्ቚकरणामुळेअभिቝኋलेखन्यायालयातसादरकेलाइ.) शपBप्ቔाआधारेनमुदकरुनअसेमुळशपBप्ቔत्ቅारदारासउपलब्धकरून्ቕावेवतयाचीएक ्ቚतआयोगाससादरकरावी. "

3.

The said Tahsildar named above, is present in the Court. The learned AGP submits that he has no explanation to offer as to why the orders were not complied with. It is conceded that the District

- 3 - Collector had also ordered him to comply with the said directions. In these circumstances, we could have directed disciplinary proceedings against the said Tahsildar named above. However, in order to grant him a reasonable opportunity of hearing and to enable the District Collector to follow the due procedure laid down in Law, we direct the District Collector, Aurangabad to refer to section 10 of The Maharashtra Government Servants Regulation of Transfers and Prevention of Delay in Discharge of Official Duties Act, 2005. All those persons / Officers who are guilty of delaying the compliance of the order of the Chief Information Commissioner, shall be subjected to such proceedings. Needless to state, adequate opportunity for defending them be provided and the principles of natural justice shall be adhered to.

4.

If the District Collector comes to a conclusion that any of such Officers or the said Tahsildar, are found guilty, appropriate action can be initiated. We make it clear to the District Collector that the action should be commensurate to the mis-demeanour proved and shall not be an eye-wash or a farce only to create a picture that some action has been taken. If the District Collector notices that certain documents

- 4 - are taken out from record, the direction of the Chief Information Commissioner to register criminal offences against such Officers shall be complied with forthwith.

5.

The Petitioners who have a photostate copy of a particular document, shall create an additional photostat copy under their signature to be forwarded to the above named Tasildar for verification and for re-construction of their record. This exercise of re-construction shall be completed within 30 days from today. 6.

Needless to state, the re-construction of the record would not rescue the erring Officer from facing disciplinary action. 7.

With the above directions, this Writ Petition is disposed off. ( Y.G.KHOBRAGADE, J. ) ( RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)