1 wp5595.14.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 5595 OF 2014
Dr. Kisan Zitaji Rathod,
aged about 56 years, Occ. Service
(DHO Yavatmal, Z.P.). R/o. Near Bhave
Mangal Karyalaya, Civil Lines, Yavatmal ...... PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The State Information Commission,
Amravati Bench, Amravati.
2. Shri Babanrao Shamraoji Gayki,
aged about Major, Occ. Private,
R/o. Chintamani 19, Radhika Layout,
Near Darda Nagar, Arni Road,
Yavatmal ... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R.R.Rathod, counsel for Petitioner.
None for respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th DATE : 14 MARCH, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT Heard Shri Rathod, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the respondents.
::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 01:00:07 :::
2 wp5595.14.odt
2] The challenge in this petition is to the order
dated 17.03.2010 passed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, against the petitioner. The order directs the petitioner to supply certain information to the respondent No.2 and for failure to supply such information within the stipulated period, disciplinary action is directed to be taken against the petitioner as required under Section 20(2) of the Right to Information Act, vide order dated 18.10.2012.
3] From the findings recorded by the State Information Commissioner, it is apparent that only one application was made to the petitioner for supply of information. The petitioner has supplied 814 pages containing the information, which was sought for. Inspite of this, the order holds the petitioner guilty for non supply of information. The information which remains to be supplied pertains to the Education Department and the petitioner being the District Health Officer, was not liable for supply of the said information.
In view of this, the order impugned cannot be ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 01:00:07 ::: 3 wp5595.14.odt sustained and the same will have to be quashed and set aside for the reason that no case was made out against the petitioner.
4] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the State Information Commission passed in Complaint No. 571 of 2011 is hereby quashed and set aside.
Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order as to costs.
JUDGE Rvjalit ::: Uploaded on - 15/03/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 16/03/2017 01:00:07 :::