Lobha S/O. Gopalrao Paunikar v. Public Information Officer, Canara Bank, Mumbai And ANR.

2024:BHC-NAG:12567-DB 23-WP-6529-2024.odt 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6529 of 2024 Lobha Gopalrao Paunikar vs.

Public Information Officer, Canara Bank, Mumbai and another. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or directions and Registrar's order ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Petitioner-in-person.

CORAM :- NITIN W. SAMBRE AND MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, JJ. DATE :- 18th NOVEMBER, 2024 P. C.

Heard Mr. Paunikar, petitioner-in-person.

2.

The petitioner has prayed for issuance of directions to the respondent to provide information as was sought by him under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by virtue of application dated 11.01.2020. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of mandamus order directing the respondent-Public Information Officer, Canara Bank, to comply with the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Central Information Commission. 3.

According to Mr. Paunikar the respondent has neither provided him the information nor complied the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the Central Information Commission which has prompted him to approach this Court.

4.

We have perused the order passed by the Central Information Commission dated 29.12.2022, so also the information sought by the petitioner vide his application dated 11.01.2020.

23-WP-6529-2024.odt 2 5.

In case, if the respondent is not complying with the order passed by the Central Information Commission dated 29.12.2022 whereby a specific order for providing information to the petitioner was passed, the petitioner has every right to avail the remedy as provided under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 6.

In such an eventuality, we see no reason to cause interference in extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is disposed of. It is open for the petitioner to relegate the remedy as provided under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. (VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J.) Andurkar.