Bombay High Court
The State Of Maharashtra Through ... vs John Shabaji Kharat And Ors on 2 April, 2016
skc 1 JUDGMENT-WP-11623-15
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 11623 OF 2015
The State of Maharashtra .. Petitioner
versus
John s/o. Shabaji Kharat & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. A. B. Vagyani - G.P. with Mr. C. P. Yadav - AGP for State -
petitioner.
Mr. Shantanu Chandratre for respondent no. 2.
ig CORAM: D. H. WAGHELA, C. J. AND
M. S. SONAK, J.
Date of Reserving the Judgment : 30 March 2016
Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 02 April 2016
JUDGMENT :
1] By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India the petitioner - State of Maharashtra challenges the judgment
and order dated 16 April 2015 made by the Maharashtra
Administrative Tribunal (MAT) in original application no. 823 of 2011,
instituted by respondent no.1 herein.
2] The respondent no. 1, by instituting original application no. 823
of 2011 had, in fact, challenged the validity of the appointments of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 as State Information Commissioners, apart
from seeking a declaration as to his own entitlement for selection to
the post of State Information Commissioner.
1 of 4
skc 2 JUDGMENT-WP-11623-15
3] By the impugned judgment and order dated 16 April 2015, MAT
for reasons stated, has declined to set aside appointments of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 or to issue any declaration with regard to
eligibility of respondent no. 1 to be considered for the post of State
Information Commissioner. Therefore, the substantive reliefs, prayed
for by respondent no. 1 in original application no. 823 of 2011, came to
be denied to respondent no. 1. The petitioner - State of Maharashtra
is obviously not aggrieved by this portion of impugned judgment and
order dated 16 April 2015. Mr. Vagyani, learned Government Pleader
in fact made a statement that the tenure of appointments of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 has already concluded and therefore, the said
respondents no longer continue as State Information Commissioners.
4] Mr. Vagyani, learned Government Pleader however submitted
that the MAT lacked jurisdiction even to entertain the original
application no. 823 of 2011, since, any matters relating to the
appointment of State Information Commissioners under the provisions
of the Right to Information Act 2005 are not 'service matters' as
defined under section 3(q) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
5] Mr. Vagyani, learned Government Pleader further submitted that
the petitioner - State of Maharashtra, in any case, is aggrieved by the
general directions issued by MAT in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the
impugned judgment and order dated 16 April 2015. Mr. Vagyani
submitted that MAT exceeded the bounds of its jurisdiction in directing
the State not only to frame rules and regulations, but, further, directing
what must be included in such rules and regulations. Mr. Vagyani
submitted that rule making is within the province of the State of
Maharashtra and in case, such rules are determined as invalid or
unconstitutional, MAT may interfere with the same. However, MAT
2 of 4
skc 3 JUDGMENT-WP-11623-15
cannot direct the State Government to frame rules in a particular
manner.
6] We have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 16
April 2015 made by MAT. The original application no. 823 of 2011,
instituted by respondent no. 1, has virtually been dismissed, in as
much as, no reliefs have been granted to respondent no. 1 either with
regard to appointments of respondent nos. 2 to 4 or with regard to
declaration of eligibility of respondent no. 1. Further, tenure of
respondent nos. 2 to 4 has also concluded and they no longer hold the
post of State Information Commissioner. In this view of the matter,
there is no necessity, at least at this stage, to decide as to whether
MAT indeed had jurisdiction to decide the matters relating to
appointment of State Information Commissioners under the provisions
of Right to Information Act, 2005. The issue is however kept open to be
decided in an appropriate case.
7] In so far as Mr. Vagyani's second contention is concerned, we
note and clarify that observations in paragraphs 63 and 64 of the
impugned judgment and order dated 16 April 2015 are not and need
not be construed as any 'directions'. The same are in the nature of
recommendations made by MAT for guidance of the State
Government. A perusal of the recommendations indicates that most of
them are in the context of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in
Union of India vs. Namit Sharma1. In view of this clarification, there
is no necessity to interfere with the impugned judgment and order
dated 16 April 2015.
1 Review Petition (C) No. 2309/2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 210/2012 (Union of India vs. Namit
Sharma with Review Petition (C) No. 2675/2012 in Writ Petition (C) No. 210/2012 (State of
Rajasthan and another vs. Namit Sharma, dated 30th September, 2013.
3 of 4
skc 4 JUDGMENT-WP-11623-15
8] Mr. Vagyani stated that the necessary rules in the matter of
appointment of State Information Commissioners are under
preparation and the State of Maharashtra will obviously comply with
the statutory provisions as applicable as also applicable observations
in Namit Sharma's case (supra). Mr. Vagyani also stated that the
State is not averse to taking into consideration suggestions in the
impugned judgment and order as long as it is made clear that
observations in paragraphs 63 and 64 are only suggestions or
recommendations, but not binding directions. From perusal of the
observations made in paragraphs 63 and 64, we are satisfied that the
same are only suggestions or recommendations and not directions. In
any case, we hereby clarify this position.
9] In view of the aforesaid clarifications, there is no necessity to
either entertain the present petition or to make any further orders
therein. We therefore dispose of this petition in the aforesaid terms.
10] There shall be no order as to costs.
CHIEF JUSTICE
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
chandka
4 of 4
