[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Deputy Administrator, Maharashtra ... vs Shri. Kishore Bhabutmal Shah on 11 March, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:11970
41-wp834-2012 Final.doc
MPBalekar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 834 OF 2012
Deputy Administrator,
Maharashtra State Road
Transport Corporation ... Petitioner
V/s.
Kishore Bhabutmal Shah ... Respondent
Ms. P.M. Bhansali i/by G.S. Hegde & Associates for the
petitioner.
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : MARCH 11, 2026
P.C.:
1. The present petition arises from an order passed by the
Second Appellate Authority under the provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005. By the said order, the petitioner has been
directed to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 as cost on the ground that
there was delay on the part of the petitioner in furnishing the
information sought by respondent No.1. The petitioner has
therefore approached this Court questioning the legality and
propriety of the said direction. According to the petitioner, the
finding recorded by the Second Appellate Authority is not
supported by the material available on record and the
circumstances in which the information was sought to be supplied
have not been properly considered. The grievance of the petitioner
is that the statutory procedure contemplated under the Act was
followed and therefore the imposition of monetary cost is
41-wp834-2012 Final.doc
unwarranted. It is in this background that the present writ petition
is required to be examined.
2. The record shows that respondent No.1 had initially filed an
application dated 19 February 2010 before the concerned
department of the State Government at Mantralaya seeking certain
information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
The said department thereafter transmitted the application to the
petitioner on 5 March 2010 for appropriate action in accordance
with law. After receiving the application, the petitioner examined
the nature of the information sought and by communication dated
26 April 2010 called upon the respondent to deposit the necessary
charges which were required for furnishing the information under
the statutory scheme of the Act. The record however indicates that
the respondent did not comply with the said communication and
did not deposit the required charges. Instead, after considerable
lapse of time, the respondent preferred an appeal before the First
Appellate Authority on 8 June 2011 alleging that the information
had not been supplied. The First Appellate Authority considered
the matter and dismissed the appeal. Not satisfied with the said
decision, the respondent carried the matter further by filing a
Second Appeal before the Second Appellate Authority. The Second
Appellate Authority allowed the appeal and directed the petitioner
to pay an amount of Rs. 10,000 towards cost on the ground that
there was delay in supplying the information. The legality of this
direction is the subject matter of the present petition.
3. On careful examination of the material placed on record, it
becomes clear that after the application dated 5 March 2010 was
41-wp834-2012 Final.doc
received, the petitioner had taken steps within a reasonable period
and had informed the respondent on 26 April 2010 to deposit the
necessary charges for providing the information. Under the scheme
of the Right to Information Act, when information requires
payment of prescribed fees or charges, the applicant is required to
deposit the same before the information is furnished. The
communication issued by the petitioner therefore cannot be
treated as inaction or delay. On the contrary, it indicates that the
petitioner had processed the application and had taken the
necessary procedural step required under the statute. Once the
respondent failed to deposit the required charges, the process of
supplying the information could not proceed further. In such
circumstances, the responsibility for non furnishing of information
cannot be placed entirely on the petitioner.
4. The Second Appellate Authority appears to have proceeded
on the assumption that the petitioner had delayed the process of
furnishing information. However, the record does not support such
conclusion. The crucial fact that the respondent did not deposit the
charges despite being called upon to do so has not been given due
weight. When the statutory procedure itself requires payment of
charges before supply of information, failure of the applicant to
comply with that requirement cannot result in penal consequences
against the public authority. The direction to pay cost of Rs. 10,000
therefore lacks a proper factual foundation. Such a direction, when
it imposes financial liability on the petitioner, must be supported
by clear evidence of fault or deliberate delay. In the present case,
such material is absent.
41-wp834-2012 Final.doc
5. In these circumstances, the Court is of the view that the
imposition of cost of Rs. 10,000 upon the petitioner is not justified.
The petitioner had taken the necessary step of calling upon the
respondent to pay the required charges and the respondent failed
to comply with that requirement. The finding recorded by the
Second Appellate Authority therefore cannot be sustained. The
impugned order to that extent deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).
6. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
