RAJARAM HULAPPA YELAGE v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & Anr.
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
With the above direction, this petition is disposed off
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. In view of the above and since Respondent No.2 is not within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, we direct Respondent No.3 to initiate appropriate steps by following the due procedure for ensuring that Respondent No.2 Information Officer takes cognizance…
Judgment
... Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. Kamble Shirish M. AGP for Respondents/State : Mr. P.K. Lakhotiya ... CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 23rd August, 2023 P.C. :-
Leave to add the Deputy Director Education, Latur Division, Latur as Respondent No.3. Addition to be carried out forthwith.
Issue notice to the Respondent Nos.1 and 3, made returnable forthwith by consent. The learned AGP waives service of notice on behalf of Respondent Nos.1 and 3.
The Petitioner's grievance is that, an application under Right to Information Act, filed with Respondent No.2, is returned back with the reason that the Information Officer is not available on the address. He, therefore, submitted another application under the Right to Information Act to the Appellate Authority. That application is also returned on the ground that, ( 2 ) 949 wp 10339.23 nobody is available.
The learned advocate for the Petitioner tenders before us a communication by Respondent No.3 dated 12.11.2018 directing the Respondent No.2 to comply with the provisions of the Right to Information Act with reference to the application of the Petitioner dated 09.10.2018 filed under the R.T.I. The said copy of the communication is marked as 'X' for identification.
In view of the above and since Respondent No.2 is not within the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution, we direct Respondent No.3 to initiate appropriate steps by following the due procedure for ensuring that Respondent No.2 Information Officer takes cognizance of the application of the Petitioner and deals with the said application within the prescribed limit as set out in the Act. If Respondent No.2 is not cooperative and attempts to frustrate the provisions of the R.T.I. Act, Respondent No.3 would be at liberty to initiate action as permissible in law.
Operative part
With the above direction, this petition is disposed off. [Y.G. KHOBRAGADE, J.]
[RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above direction, this petition is disposed off
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Right to Information Act, 2005; Constitution of India — art. 12.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 23 Aug 2023. The bench was Y G KHOBRAGADE, RAVINDRA V GHUGE.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.