Bombay High Court
Shri. Suresh Arjunrao Gaikwad vs The State Of Maharashtra, Through ... on 12 July, 2017
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani
3. civil wp 8127-14.doc
RMA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8127 OF 2014
Suresh Arjunrao Gaikwad .. Petitioner
Versus
State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
...................
Appearances
Mr. Prashant M. Patil Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Vishal Thadani AGP for the State
...................
CORAM : SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
DATE : JULY 12, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT [PER SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.] :
1. Heard both sides.
2. Rule. By consent of the parties, Rule is made
returnable forthwith and the matter is heard finally.
3. This petition is directed against the order dated
7.2.2013 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal,
Mumbai in Misc. Application No. 577 of 2011 in Original
jfoanz vkacsjdj 1 of 4
3. civil wp 8127-14.doc
Application No. 184 of 2013 preferred by the petitioner. The
Misc. Application was for condonation of delay caused in
filing the O.A. In this application, the petitioner had sought
condonation of delay of over 9 Years and 8 Months in filing
the O.A. In the O.A., the petitioner has sought relief that he
should be considered for promotion to the post of Assistant
Police Inspector on 17.4.2001 and also subsequent
promotion to the post of Police Inspector from 2.5.2007.
Admittedly, the O.A. was filed on 15.12.2011.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
delay is not 9 years and 8 months but it is a shorter delay in
view of the fact that the petitioner had filed an application
under Right to Information Act on 12.4.2006, however, he did
not get any reply thereto and he subsequently filed another
application under Right to Information Act on 18.9.2010. He
received a reply to the second application under Right to
Information Act on 28.10.2010 and the O.A. has been filed on
15.12.2011. Hence, the delay would only be from
jfoanz vkacsjdj 2 of 4
3. civil wp 8127-14.doc
28.10.2010 to 15.12.2011.
5. It is clear from the record that the petitioner is seeking
promotion from 17.4.2001 as an Assistant Police Inspector
and also as Police Inspector from 2.5.2007. It is an admitted
fact that the petitioner has already retired on 31.9.2009.
6. The petitioner had filed an application under Right to
Information Act on 12.4.2006 seeking information from the
office of Director General of Police. As the information sought
was not given, the petitioner again filed an application under
Right to Information Act on 18.9.2010 and the information
was made available on 28.10.2010 and the O.A. has been
filed on 15.12.2011.
7. The first application which was filed under Right to
Information Act was filed on 12.4.2006, however, thereafter,
the petitioner remained absolutely silent for 4 1/2 years
between 12.4.2006 and 18.9.2010. He made no attempt to
jfoanz vkacsjdj 3 of 4
3. civil wp 8127-14.doc
immediately make another application under Right to
Information Act or send a reminder. Similarly, it is an
admitted fact that the information under the Right to
Information Act was received on 28.10.2010, however, even
thereafter, the O.A. has not been filed and the petitioner has
taken more than 15 months to file the O.A. even after
receiving the relevant information on 28.10.2010.
8. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of this
case, no error is found in the order of the Tribunal that no
sufficient cause is made out for condoning the delay, hence,
the petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
[ SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J. ] [ SMT. V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J. ]
jfoanz vkacsjdj 4 of 4
