← Library
Bombay High CourtWP/2207/2024dismissed

Roshan Manohar Patil v. Assistant Director, Urban Construction Department (Nagar Rachana Vibhag), N.M.C., Nagpur And Others

2024-06-12Hon'Ble Shri Justice Nitin W. Sambre,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Abhay J. Mantri2 pages

1 wp2207.24

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 2207 OF 2024 ( Roshan Manohar Patil ..vs.. Assistant Director, Urban Construction Department, NMC, Nagpur and other ) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. Jitesh Duhilani, Counsel (appointed) for the petitioner. CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE & ABHAY J. MANTRI , J J .

DATED : 12-06-2024 The grievance of the petitioner is for issuance of directions to the respondent-Planning Authority to supply the information as was sought by him in pursuance to the application dated 16-10-2023 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

2.

The respondent-Planning Authority has attended the request and has asked the petitioner to give complete details about the property in relation to which the information is sought.

3.

On perusal of the application moved under the provisions of the Right to Information Act by the petitioner, it is aptly clear that the petitioner has at all not given the details of the property about whom the information is to be supplied.

2 wp2207.24 4.

The respondent-Planning Authority has already informed the petitioner that the information can be provided subject to providing details of the property for which information is sought.

5.

Since the respondent-Planning Authority has already provided an option to the petitioner to apply afresh, we deem it appropriate not to cause interference in the petition. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed.

6.

However, this will not preclude the petitioner from applying afresh under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.

(ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) adgokar