Mrs. Pushpa W/O Devendra Sood And ... vs The Maharashtra State ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1834 Bom

 wp5465.15.J.odt                                                                                                 1/8



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR

                          WRIT PETITION NO.5465 OF 2015

 1]        Mrs. Pushpa w/o Devendra Sood,
           Aged about 55 years, Occupation - Service.

 2]        Devendra s/o Hansraj Sood,
           Aged about 55 years, Occupation - Business,
           Both residents of 918-B, Thaper Marg,
           Clarke Town, Nagpur - 440 004.      ....... PETITIONERS

                                           ...V E R S U S...

 1]        The Maharashtra State Information Commission
           through State Information Commissioner & Second
           Appellate Authority, Bruhanmumbai, 13th Floor,
           New Adminstrative Building, Madam Cama Road,
           Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Near Mantralaya,
           Mumbai - 400 032.

 2]        State Public First Appellate Authority,
           Directorate of Medical Education and
           Research, 4th Floor, Government Dental
           College Building, St. George's Hospital
           Compound, Near C.S.T., P. Demelo Road, 
           Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.

 3]       State Public Information Officer,
          Directorate of Medical Education and
          Research, 4th Floor, Government Dental
          College Building, St. George's Hospital
          Compound, Near C.S.T., P. Demelo Road,
          Fort, Mumbai - 400 001.                            ....... RESPONDENTS
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Mrs. P.D. Sood, Petitioner No.1 in-person.
          Shri S.B. Bissa, AGP for Respondent No.1.
          Shri N.S. Khandewale, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      CORAM:  R.K. DESHPANDE, J. 

th APRIL, 2017.

                      DATE:      19




  wp5465.15.J.odt                                                                                                 2/8

 ORAL JUDGMENT



 1]                   Heard finally the petitioner No.1 appearing in person,

Shri Bissa, the learned A.G.P. appearing for respondent No.1 and

Shri Khandewale, the learned counsel appearing for respondent

Nos.2 and 3.

2] The petitioner served a notice for voluntary

retirement dated 23.07.2014 addressed to the Secretary, Medical

Education and Drugs Department (Annexure P-1) through proper

channel i.e. the Professor and Head Department of the Anatomy,

IGGMC, Nagpur. This application was forwarded by the Professor

and Head Department of the Anatomy under his covering letter

dated 04.08.2014 to the Dean, Indira Gandhi Government

Medical College, Nagpur. The Dean then forwarded this

application under his covering letter dated 05.08.2014 to the

Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai. The office of

the Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai received

the said application on 16.08.2014. The said application was

rejected by the Director on 04.09.2014 on the ground that the

petitioner was not working at any institute.

  wp5465.15.J.odt                                                                                                 3/8

 3]                   The   petitioner   submitted   her   application   on

24.11.2014 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to the

respondent No.3-the State Public Information Officer in the office

of the Director, Medical Education and Research. The information

was sought by this application as under:

[i] to give the date of forwarding her notice dated

23.07.2014 for voluntary retirement to the Secretary,

Medical Education and Drugs Department by the

Director, Medical Education and Research.

[ii] to supply a copy of the letter forwarding her notice

dated 23.07.2014 for voluntary retirement by the

Director, Medical Education and Research to the

Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department.

The petitioner was not satisfied with the response given by the

respondent and therefore, she preferred statutory appeal before

the respondent No.2-State Public First Appellate Authority i.e. the

office of the Director, Medical Education and Research.

Being unsuccessful to get the relief, she filed further appeal before

the respondent No.1-the Maharashtra State Information

wp5465.15.J.odt 4/8

Commission on 08.02.2015. The petitioner did not get any relief

though the appeal was decided on 24.07.2015. Therefore, this

writ petition was filed.

4] On 29.10.2015 after hearing the parties this Court

passed a detailed order. The relevant portion of the order is

reproduced below:

The question involved is whether the petitioner has been furnished with the information which she has asked for in her application dated 24.11.2014 addressed to the State Public Information Officer in the Office of the Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the reply expected was that either such application was not forwarded to the Secretary of the Department of Medical Education and Drugs or if such application was forwarded, to furnish the date and certified copies of the forwarding letter along with the accompaniments therewith, asked for by the petitioner. However, the response of the Public Information Officer on 15.12.2014 does not fall in any of these two categories. This letter sates that the information is contained in the document forwarded along with the said communication. The document attached to the said communication is the order dated 30.10.2014 passed by the Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai, accepting the notice of voluntary retirement given by the petitioner.

It is not the case of the respondents in the affidavit dated 29.10.2015 filed in response to the notice issued by this Court that the application for voluntary retirement given by the petitioner on 23.07.2014 was either forwarded or not forwarded to

wp5465.15.J.odt 5/8

the Secretary, Medical Education and Drugs Department. It is also not the stand that such response was given to the petitioner on 15.12.2014. Though in the affidavit, the stand is taken that all the information was supplied, it is stoically silent in respect of the actual information that has been supplied to the petitioner. It is not the stand taken in the affidavit that apart from the order dated 30.10.2014 annexed to the letter dated 15.12.2014, any other information or the documents were supplied to the petitioner. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are the responsible Officers of the State Government which is the model employer. If proper affidavit could have been filed, the matter would have been disposed of.

In view of the aforesaid position, prima facie, it is apparent that th respondent nos. 2 and 3 are trying to hid some information not only from the petitioner but also from this Court. No definite stand has been taken in the affidavit. It is not the stand that the information sought by the petitioner is not available or that the application was not made to the appropriate Authority. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 are, therefore, directed to personally remain present before this Court on 23.11.2015, along with the entire original record, indicating as to how the application for voluntary retirement submitted by the petitioner on 23.07.2014 was processed. If in spite of the order, the respondents fail to remain present before this Court, this Court shall be constrained to issue bailable warrant to secure their presence.

5] On 08.12.2015 the respondent Nos.2 and 3 have filed

an affidavit before this Court stating in paragraph 7 as under:

It is stated that as the decision of voluntary retirement was taken by the Director, Medical Education and Research, Mumbai, under the orders of

wp5465.15.J.odt 6/8

the Department of Medical Education and Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai dated 09.10.2014. Thus there was no reason for the Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai to forward the application for voluntary retirement to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai. However, the application dated 24.11.2014 seeking information as to whether the application for voluntary retirement of the petitioner dated 23.07.2014 was forwarded to the Secretary, Department of Medical Education and Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai had become meaningless as the Department of Medical Education and Drugs, Mantralaya, Mumbai itself had directed the Director of Medical Education and Research, Mumbai to decide the application of the petitioner. Hence the information was not given, as the same was not generated.

6] It is the clear stand taken by the respondent Nos.2

and 3, in response to the order passed in this writ petition, that

the notice of voluntary retirement dated 23.07.2014 given by the

petitioner was decided by the Director, Medical Education and

Research and therefore, the claim of the petitioner for supply of

the date of forwarding her application to the Secretary and for

supply of the copy of such covering letter has become redundant.

The fact remains that the Director, Medical Education and

Research has taken decision on the final notice of the petitioner

for voluntary retirement. The grievance of the petitioner for

supply of information made in this writ petition does not

therefore, survive.

  wp5465.15.J.odt                                                                                                 7/8

 7]                   The matter cannot however, be concluded here, as it

is for the first time by filing an affidavit on 08.12.2005, the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have supplied the information sought by

the petitioner in her application dated 24.11.2014. There is an

inordinate delay in supplying the information. The petitioner was

required to run from the office of respondent No.3 to the

Appellate Authority of respondent No.1. In such a situation,

further orders are required to be passed as contemplated under

the Right to Information Act, by the State Information

Commission in respect of penalty under Section 20, compensation

under Section 19 and disciplinary inquiry under Section 20 by the

State Information Commission. Hence, the petition will have to be

allowed by setting aside the order passed by the respondent No.1

on 24.07.2015 in Appeal No.BM - 596/2015.

8] In the result, the order dated 24.07.2015 passed by

the Maharashtra State Information Commissioner in Appeal

No.BM - 596/2015 is hereby quashed and set aside. Since the

respondent Nos.2 and 3 have supplied before this Court the

required information to the petitioner, the grievance of the

petitioner is satisfied to that extent. The matter is remitted back to

the respondent No.1-Maharashtra State Information Commission

wp5465.15.J.odt 8/8

to decide the said appeal to pass appropriate orders, in the light of

the observations made by this Court. The parties to appear before

the respondent No.1 on 29.05.2017. The respondent Nos.2 and 3

should treat this order as a show cause notice for the acts covered

by Section 7(1), 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act.

On that very same date i.e. on 29.05.2017 they shall file their

reply on affidavit before the respondent No.1, who shall thereafter

decide the matter within a period of three months. No order as to

costs.

JUDGE

NSN