Gtl Ltd. v. State Information Commissioner And Others

(1) WP No.182/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

WRIT PETITION NO. 182 OF 2014 G.T.L. Limited.

Petitioner.

Versus

State Information Commissioner & ors.

Respondents.

*** Mr. S.P. Shah, Advocate instructed by Mr. D.R. Jethliya, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.R. Shaikh, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. K.S. Sant, Advocate for respondent Nos.4,5,7 to 9. *** CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.

Dated :

12 February 2019.

ORDER :- .

Heard both the sides.

2.

The petition is filed to challenge the order made by the State Information Commissioner in favour of respondent No.4 by which the petitioner/Public Limited Company is directed to supply the information with regard to 16 items mentioned in the application made by respondent No.4.

3.

The grievance of the learned Counsel representing the petitioner Company is that, the G.T.L. Company is doing the

(2) WP No.182/2014 business all over the India and the work given by M.S.E.D.C.L. to petitioner Company for Aurangabad City was one of the several works, which were undertaken by the petitioner Company and due to that the petitioner Company is not able to understand as to whether the information with regard to all the activities which were undertaken by the petitioner Company needs to be given or only the information with regard to the activities, work of Aurangabad City given by M.S.E.D.C.L. needs to be given. 4.

This Court has carefully gone through the 16 items mentioned in the application by respondent No.4 and this Court is making it clear that respondent No.4 is interested only in respect of the transaction which was between M.S.E.D.C.L. and petitioner Company for Aurangabad City. So, the information of all 16 items with regard to this transaction is to be supplied. 5.

The submissions made show that at present the petitioner Company has no transaction with M.S.E.D.C.L. and it is not doing electricity business and due to that there may be technical difficulty like the petitioner Company may not be having Information Officer under Right to Information Act. To take care of this possibility, this Court is hereby directing the petitioner

(3) WP No.182/2014 Company to give the name of one responsible Officer who is Incharge of the information of the Company and who can be held responsible in the same way even at present for complying the order. The name and post supplied is as under :- Mr. Abhijit Deshpande, Vice President, Power and EPC, GTL Limited.

6.

In the aforesaid terms the petition is disposed of. ( T.V. NALAWADE ) JUDGE vdd/