Gram Vikas Samiti, Shahapur ... vs State Information Commissioner, ...
2018 Latest Caselaw 926 Bom

                                                    1              34-J-WP-6204-17.odt

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

                        WRIT PETITION NO.6204 OF 2017

 1. Gram Vikas Samiti,
    Shahapur F/4B, Tahshil
    and District Bhandara,
    Through its Secretary,
    Darshanlal Nandlal Malhotra,
    Aged about : 50 years,
    Occupation - Agriculturist,
    R/o Thana Petrol Pump
    (Jawahar Nagar), 
    Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.

 2. Head Master/Principal,
    Nagaji Joshi High School &
    Jr. College, Shanapur,
    Tah. & Dist. Bhandara.                                   ..... PETITIONERS

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

 1. State Information Commissioner,
    State Information Commissioner,
    Maharashtra State, Bench at Nagpur,
    Civil Lines, Nagpur.

 2. Shri Vijay Mahesh Gupta,
    Aged about : Major,
    Occ. Private, R/o Civil Lines,
    Sakoli, Tah. Sakoli,
    Dist. Bhandara.

 3. First Appellate Officer,
    Education Officer,
    Zilla Parishad, Bhandara,
    Dist. Bhandara.                                          ... RESPONDENTS

 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Shri N. D. Khamborkar, Advocate for the petitioners.
 Shri A.P.J.P. Dubey, Advocate for the respondent No.2.
 Shri A. S. Fulzele, Additional Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.1 and 3.
 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




::: Uploaded on - 30/01/2018                                ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2018 01:06:59 :::
                                                    2             34-J-WP-6204-17.odt

                                CORAM:-    
                                            SMT. VASANTI  A  NAIK &
                                             ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.

DATED :

24/01/2018.

ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER SMT. VASANTI A NAIK , J.)

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The writ petition is

heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned

counsel for the parties.

By this writ petition, the petitioners challenge the order of

the State Information Commissioner, dated 27/04/2017 allowing an

appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and directing the petitioner to

furnish the information sought by the respondent No.2.

Inter alia, the impugned order is challenged by the

petitioners on the ground that the same is passed against the petitioners

without granting an opportunity of hearing. It is submitted that though

the appeal was posted for hearing on 27/04/2017, the petitioners did

not receive a notice that the hearing would be conducted on that day.

Shri Fulzele, the learned Additional Government Pleader

appearing for the respondent Nos.1 and 3 states by referring to the

affidavit-in-reply that is tendered in the Court today that a notice of

hearing dated 27/04/2017 was issued by regular post on 10/04/2017.

It is stated that if the petitioners have received the impugned order by

regular post, it would be presumed that the petitioners have also

received the notice, dated 10/04/2017.

3 34-J-WP-6204-17.odt

Since there is nothing on record to show that the petitioners

were served with the notice of hearing of the appeal filed by the

respondent No.2 on 27/04/2017, the impugned order is liable to be

quashed and set aside. The duty of the authority to ensure service on

the respondents would not be complete till the authority is sure that the

respondents are served with the notice of hearing of the matter. Mere

issuance of notice pertaining to the date of hearing by regular post

without ensuring whether the party has received the notice or not

would not be enough to guarantee that the party was served. In the

instant case, though it is stated on behalf of the respondent No.1 that

the notice is issued to the petitioners by regular post, there is nothing

on record to show that the petitioners were served with the same. It

would be necessary in the circumstances of the case to believe that the

petitioners were not served with the notice of hearing. Since the

petitioners were not served with the notice of hearing, the impugned

order is liable to the set aside.

Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The impugned order is quashed and set aside. The respondent

No.1 is free to decide the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 after

hearing the petitioners and the respondent No.2. The petitioners and

the respondent No.2 undertake to appear before the respondent No.1 -

authority on 12/02/2018 so that the issuance of notice to the parties

could be dispensed with.

4 34-J-WP-6204-17.odt

Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order

as to costs.

                      JUDGE                                  JUDGE


 Choulwar