Bombay High Court
Col. (Retd.) Shri. Anand G. ... vs Shri. Madhukar Yadav Zende And Ors on 11 October, 2017
Bench: M.S. Sonak
41.wp.898.15.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.898 OF 2015
Col. (Retd.) Shri Anand G. Deshpande & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs
Shri Madhukar Yadav Zende & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.426 OF 2015
Col. (Retd.) Shri Anand G. Deshpande & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs
Shri Shrikant Gajanan Beni & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION (L) NO.427 OF 2015
Col. (Retd.) Shri Anand G. Deshpande & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs
Shri Shrikant Gajanan Beni & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2007 OF 2016
Col. (Retd.) Shri Anand G. Deshpande & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs
Shri Shrikant Gajanan Beni & Ors. ... Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.2396 OF 2016
Col. (Retd.) Shri Anand G. Deshpande & Anr. ... Petitioners
Vs
Shri Shrikant Gajanan Beni & Ors. ... Respondents
Habeeb 1/4
::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 14/10/2017 02:19:58 :::
41.wp.898.15.doc
...
Mr. Ashok B. Tajane for the Petitioners.
Mr. Vivek Salunke for the Respondents.
CORAM : M. S. SONAK, J.
DATE : 11th OCTOBER, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule in each of these petitions. With the consent and on the
the request of the learned counsel for the parties, rule is made returnable
forthwith.
3. In all these cases, the petitioner, who is a Public Information
Officer and Secretary of the Sarvajanik Vachanaly Tilak Road, Nashik,
questions the orders made by the State Information Commissioner,
imposing penalty of Rs.2000/- upon the Petitioner No.1, in each of these
petitions for having delayed imparting information to the respondent No.1.
4. This Court, in Writ Petition No.899 of 2015 instituted by this
very petitioner, vide judgment and order dated 9 th December 2015, in
virtually identical circumstances, had declined to interfere with the
imposition of penalty but had reduced the penalty amount to Rs.100/- only.
5. The learned counsel for the parties submits that in fact the
Habeeb 2/4
41.wp.898.15.doc
present five petitions were to be taken up along with Writ Petition No.899
of 2015, but remained so on account of certain logistical reason. They
agree that the reasoning in the judgment and order dated 9 th December
2015 will apply to the facts and circumstances of the present petition as
well.
6. Accordingly, for the reasons set out in the judgment and order
dated 9th December 2015 in Writ Petition No.899 of 2015, these petitions
are disposed of. The imposition of penalty is maintained, however, the
quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs.100/- in each of the petition. The rule
is made partly absolute to the aforesaid extend in each of the petitions.
7. Mr. Tajane, the learned counsel for the petitioners points out
that the petitioner No.1 has in fact deposited the penalty amount with the
Government Treasury at Nashik. He places on record xerox copies of the
receipts in this regard. Since, now, the amount of penalty is reduced from
Rs.2000/- to Rs.100/- in each of the petition, the petitioner No.1, will be
entitled to proportionate refund. The treasury, therefore, is directed to
refund the penalty amount after retaining an amount of Rs.100/- by way of
penalty in each of these petitions. In case there is any difficulty securing
refund, the petitioner No.1 is at liberty to apply to the State Information
Habeeb 3/4
41.wp.898.15.doc
Commission, which can, issue necessary directions in the matter of refund.
These petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
(M. S. SONAK, J.)
Habeeb 4/4
