Back
2015 Supreme(Bom) 293
High Court of Judicature at Bombay
A.S. OKA & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.
Vivek Vishnupant Kulkarni - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra, through Chief Secretary, Mantralaya & Others - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 6961 of 2012
Decided on: 27-02-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Uday P. Warunjikar, Advocate.
For the Respondents: R1, R3 & R4, V.S. Gokhale, AGP.
Headnote:Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19(3) Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005, Sections 2(g), 4, 8 and 9 Furnishing of information Denial of. When applicant was not given information as to G.R. concerning release of land from Urban Development Department and it was said to him that file was not treaceable; High Court alike State Information Commission directed to lodge FIR against respondent and investigate the case. Thus, Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act clearly mandates that whoever contravenes the provisions of Section 4 or Section 8 of the said Act shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years or with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees. or with both. Thus, according to us the said file bearing No. ULC/1089/2123/ULC-2 which pertains to the resolution dated 21st August, 1996 is a ’public record’ as contemplated under Section 2(g) of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005 and it was mandatory for all the concerned authorities to preserve it under the provisions of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. Hence, in the facts of the case, Section 9 of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005 is certainly attracted.
In view of the clear direction issued by the Second Appellate Authority, they were bound to set criminal law in motion as the documents could not be traced within the stipulated time.
A.S. Gadkari, J.
1. Notice for final disposal was issued under the order dated 21st August, 2013.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned AGP for the Respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4. The Respondent No.2 is a formal party as the Petitioner by this present Petition has prayed for the implementation of the order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the Respondent No.2. Hence, notice to the said Respondent is dispensed with.
3. The case in hand is a classic example, as to how the Government officers for protecting their fellow officers tend to frustrate the basic intention of the legislature behind the enactment of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. The brief facts which are necessary for the decision of the present case can be stated thus :
(i) The Petitioner is associated with a public trust by the name Swatantraya Veer Sawarkar Pratishthan, Vishrambaug, Sangli dedicated to the social, educational, and charitable activities. The said trust is running two schools and both the said schools are having about 1600 students on its roll.
(ii) The Petitioner filed an application dated 5th September, 2008 with the Respondent No.4 for seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 1996. The said resolution was pertaining to the release of various lands in and around the vicinity of Sangli city which were acquired by the Government under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. He sought information about the Government notings and other documents on the basis of which the said Government Resolution was issued. The details of the lands released on the basis of the said Government Resolution were also sought. By a communication dated 22nd September, 2008 the Respondent No.4 informed the Petitioner that the required information sought for by the Petitioner is pertaining to file No. ULC/1089/2123//ULC-2 which is not available on the record of the Urban Development Department and therefore, the said information cannot be furnished to the Petitioner. By the said communication dated 22nd September, 2008 it was informed to the Petitioner that the other information which was sought for by the Petitioner vide his point No.4 in his application dated 5th September, 2008 is in connection with the office of the Deputy Collector and competent authority, Sangli and the said application to that extent has been transferred/transmitted to the said authority for further action in the matter.
(iii) The Petitioner feeling aggrieved by the said non-action by the Respondent No.4 preferred an appeal bearing No.4 of 2008 under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the Respondent No.3 on 27th November, 2008. The Respondent No.3 i.e. the Appellate Authority and the Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department by its order dated Nil January 2009 partly allowed the said appeal thereby directing the Information Officer along with the Section Officer ULCA-2 to take search of the concerned file bearing No. ULC/1089/2123//ULC-2 and to submit the file or information in connection with the file to the Petitioner immediately. It was further directed to the Deputy Collector and Competent Authority, Sangli Urban Agglomeration to provide the information in respect of the lands returned to the owners as per the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 1996. The said information was directed to be furnished to the Petitioner within a period of fifteen days. The First Appellate Authority i.e. the Respondent No.3 in his order dated Nil January 2009 has observed that as the Government Resolution dated 21st August, 1996 is a policy decision taken by the Government, the file pertaining to the said decision must be available. It was observed that there is a scope to make efforts for tracing the said file. It was also observed that the information which was sought for by the Petitioner was not available with the Public Information Officer and therefore, the said
