Dr. Kisan Zitaji Rathod vs The State Information ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 711 Bom

                                                  1              wp5595.14.odt

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


                          WRIT PETITION NO. 5595 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,
            Amravati Bench, Amravati.

 2.         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.
 None for respondents
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, J.

th DATE : 14 MARCH, 2017 .

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Shri Rathod, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner. None appears for the

respondents.

                                                    2              wp5595.14.odt

          2]               The   challenge   in   this   petition   is   to   the   order

dated 17.03.2010 passed under Section 19(3) of the Right to

Information Act, 2005, against the petitioner. The order

directs the petitioner to supply certain information to the

respondent No.2 and for failure to supply such information

within the stipulated period, disciplinary action is directed to

be taken against the petitioner as required under Section

20(2) of the Right to Information Act, vide order dated

18.10.2012.

3] From the findings recorded by the State

Information Commissioner, it is apparent that only one

application was made to the petitioner for supply of

information. The petitioner has supplied 814 pages

containing the information, which was sought for. Inspite of

this, the order holds the petitioner guilty for non supply of

information. The information which remains to be supplied

pertains to the Education Department and the petitioner

being the District Health Officer, was not liable for supply of

the said information.

In view of this, the order impugned cannot be

3 wp5595.14.odt

sustained and the same will have to be quashed and set

aside for the reason that no case was made out against the

petitioner.

4] In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The

order dated 18.10.2012 passed by the State Information

Commission passed in Complaint No. 571 of 2011 is hereby

quashed and set aside.

Rule is made absolute in above terms. No order

as to costs.

JUDGE

Rvjalit