Bombay High Court
Vikas S/O Dinkar Andhale vs State Inforamation ... on 2 August, 2016
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar
1 jg.wp3104.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
: NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 3104 OF 2015
Vikas S/o Dinkar Andhale
Aged Major, Occ. Agriculturist,
R/o. Pimpri Andhale, Tah.
Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana. ... Petitioner
// VERSUS //
(1) State Information Commissioner,
State Information Commission,
Amravati Bench, Amravati.
(2) The Tahsildar/First Appellate
Authority, Deulgaon Raja,
Tah. Deulgaon Raja, District Buldhana.
(3) The Talathi/Public Information Officer,
Pimpri Andhale, Tah. Deulgaon Raja,
District Buldhana. ... Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri A. M. Kadukar, Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.
DATE : 2-8-2016.
ORAL ORDER
Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner takes exception to the order dated 2-12-2014 passed
by the State Information Commissioner on the appeal filed by the petitioner
under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for
short, 'the said Act'). The petitioner on 11-12-2013 moved an application under
2 jg.wp3104.15.odt
the provisions of the said Act seeking information as to the basis on which
mutation entry no. 987 had been taken. Information sought was with regard to
the documents on the basis of which said entry was taken along with copies of
the notice issued under form nos. 9 and 12. The petitioner was informed by the
Information Officer that the said documents could not be traced. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal under Section 19(3) of the said Act. The
State Information Commissioner by order dated 28-4-2014 passed an order
remanding the matter to the Information Officer for fresh consideration.
Thereafter, the Tahsildar on 26-5-2014 passed an order directing supply of
necessary information to the petitioner on payment of charges. As this
information was not supplied, the petitioner filed further appeal before the State
Information Commission. By the impugned order, the appellate authority held
that the notice issued under form nos. 9 and 12 had been destroyed and hence
the same could not be supplied. It further observed that the other records could
not be traced and on that basis, the appeal came to be disposed of. This order is
under challenge in the present writ petition.
3. Shri Ghuge, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
information sought by the petitioner was with regard to the documents on the
basis of which mutation entry no. 987 came to be taken. He submitted that
insofar as the notice in Form Nos. 9 and 12 concerned, the same appeared to
have been destroyed due to lapse of period of 12 months, however, there was no
finding given by the State Information Commission as to the documents on the
3 jg.wp3104.15.odt
basis of which the mutation entry was taken.
4. Shri Kadukar, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the
respondents relied upon the affidavit in reply and submitted that the records had
been destroyed in view of the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Record
Keeping Act, 2005. He submitted that the records were categorized in four
different categories which indicated the manner in which such record has to be
preserved. He further submitted that the State Commission rightly dismissed the
appeal.
5. Having heard the respective counsel for the parties, it can be seen
that the State Information Commission has merely recorded a finding with
regard to non supply of notice under form nos. 9 and 12. It has been stated that
as period of more than 12 months has elapsed, the same had been destroyed.
This aspect regarding destruction of notices appears to be supported by the
provisions of the Maharashtra Public Record Keeping Act, 2005. However, there
is no consideration as to the manner in which the documents on the basis of
which such mutation entry has taken. Even the reply filed on behalf of the
respondents does not throw light on this aspect of the matter. It would be a
different matter if even such documents on the basis of which mutation entry
is taken are permitted to be destroyed as per the Maharashtra Public Record
Keeping Act, 2005. The same, however, does not appear to be clear from the
record.
6. In view of this position, it would be necessary to direct the
4 jg.wp3104.15.odt
respondent no. 2 to reconsider the matter in the light of the application made by
the petitioner dated 11-12-2013. It is, however, made clear that as the notice
issued under form nos. 9 and 12 appear to have been destroyed which aspect is
also not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the adjudication
would only be with regard to the documents on the basis of which the mutation
entry bearing no. 987 had been taken. Hence, the order dated 2-12-2014 passed
by the respondent no. 1 as well as the order dated 26-5-2014 passed by the
respondent no. 2 are set aside.
The petitioner shall appear before the first appellate authority on
22-8-2016 to enable the appeal to be considered in accordance with law.
Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. No costs.
JUDGE
wasnik
CERTIFICATE
"I certify that this Judgment uploaded is a true and correct copy of
original singed Judgment."
Uploaded by : A. Y. Wasnik, P.A. Uploaded on : 4-8-2016
