Bombay High Court
Dr Kisan Zitaji Rathod vs The State Information ... on 14 March, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
1 mca168.15.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 168 OF 2015
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 5584 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,
Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, at 1st Floor,
Administrative Building No.2, Nagpur.
2. The First Appellate Officer,
The Additional Chief Executive Officer,
Zilla Parishad, Yavatmal...
3. 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.
Shri D.M.Kale, counsel for Respondent no. 2
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.
th
DATE : 14 MARCH, 2017 .
ORAL JUDGMENT
1] On 21st January, 2015, this Court dismissed the
2 mca168.15.odt
writ petition No. 5584 of 2014 and the order passed is
reproduced below;
"The petition challenges the order dated 17.03.2010
passed by the State Information Commissioner at Nagpur
in Appeal No. 1400/AM/2009. The order directs the
document to be supplied to the respondent within a period
of ten days from the date of receiving of the order and it
further directs that the disciplinary action should be
initiated against the Public Information Officer for not
supplying the information within the prescribed period.
From the order itself, it is apparent that the State
Information Commissioner was required to direct supply of
information. If there is any justification for delay caused in
supply of information, the petitioner shall be at liberty to
put-forth all such grounds in his defence, if any such
enquiry is instituted and the Competent Authority shall
consider the grounds in accordance with law. No
interference is called for. The writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner is permitted to raise all grounds as are
available in law in departmental enquiry."
2] The petitioner filed Misc. Civil Application No.
168 of 2015 for review of the aforesaid order. On 13 th
February, 2015, this Court passed an order as under;
"It is the contention raised that the deficiency if at all there
was any in supply of the information, was in respect of the
matter which pertains to the Department of Education and
not pertaining to the Office of District Health Officer where
the petitioner was working. In view of this, there was no
occasion to direct an enquiry to be held for non supply of
documents on the part of the petitioner.
Issue notices for final disposal of the matter,
returnable on 27.03.2015.
Shri D.M.Kale, the learned counsel appears for
Respondent No.2."
3] On 6th April, 2015, the review petition was
3 mca168.15.odt
admitted. It seems that the respondent No. 3 - Shri
Babanrao Shamraoji Gayaki, preferred Special Leave
Petition No. 10632 of 2016, challenging the order passed by
this Court, admitting the review petition. The same was
dismissed by the Apex Court on 23.04.2016.
On 28th February, 2017, this Court passed an
order as under;
"It seems that this Court admitted Misc. Civil Application
No. 168 of 2015 on 6-4-2015 for review of the order dated
21-1-2015 passed in Writ Petition No. 5584 of 2014.
Though no reasons are recorded while granting Rule in
Misc. Civil Application No. 168 of 2015, the learned
counsel for the applicant/petitioner submits that identical
petition was admitted by this Court, being Writ Petition
No. 5595 of 2014 on 4-2-2015. He submits that this Misc.
Civil Application is, therefore, required to be heard along
with Writ Petition No. 5595 of 2014.
It is apparent that both the writ petitions are preferred by
the same person challenging two orders passed by the
State Information Commissioner in one matter. Hence,
this Misc. Civil Application is required to be heard along
with Writ Petition No. 5595 of 2014.
The office is, therefore, directed to obtain appropriate
orders either from the Senior Administrative Judge or from
Hon'ble the Chief Justice for placing this matter before the
same Court".
Accordingly, the matter is now listed before this
Court.
Heard the learned counsels appearing for the
parties.
4 mca168.15.odt
4] There is no dispute that the review petitioner had
supplied the entire information which was sought by the
respondent, running into 792 pages. The failure to supply
the information was by the Department of Education. The
petitioner being working as District Health Officer, Yavatmal,
was not responsible for supply of such information. Writ
Petition No. 5595 of 2014 filed by the petitioner challenging
the order of the State Information Commission has been
allowed and the order passed by the State Information
Commission on 18.10.2012 has been set aside. The
Department had initiated disciplinary proceedings against the
petitioner pursuant to the order passed by the State
Information Commission on 18.10.2012.
5] Since the said order itself has been set aside,
this review petition needs to be allowed by setting aside the
order dated 17.03.2010 passed by the State Information
Commission. Consequently, the order dated 30.12.2008
passed by the Additional Chief Executive Officer, Appellate
Authority, directing the petitioner to supply the information to
the respondent is also hereby quashed and set aside. The
5 mca168.15.odt
review petition as well as writ petition are allowed and
disposed of accordingly.
Rule is made absolute in these terms. No order
as to costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
