TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (9) TMI 1129
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....008 preferred a Second Appeal dated 15th June, 2009 as contemplated under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the State Information Commission bearing No.262/2011/Sangli before its Pune Bench. In the said appeal, the Petitioner had raised certain issues and contended that if the information sought for from the Government authorities is not available with the concerned department itself, then there is no use of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Petitioner also pleaded that as the information sought for by the Petitioner from the concerned authority is having serious repercussions, the said information was of utmost importance from the point of view of public interest and requested the Second Appellate Authority to allow the appeal. (v) As the Second Appellate Authority did not hear the appeal immediately / expeditiously, the Petitioner sent reminder letters dated 2nd December, 2009, 1st July, 2010, 14th July, 2010, 28th July, 2010 and 13th May, 2011 to the Appellate Authority. The Second Appellate Authority i.e. the Respondent No.2 herein thereafter on 6th April 2011 heard all the concerned in the matter and passed the judgment and order dated 18th Au....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... record was not maintained as contemplated under the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005, it amounts to denial of the information to the Petitioner and therefore, it was directed to initiate action against all the concerned by registering an offence under the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005. The said direction was issued to Mr. Suresh Kakani by specifically mentioning his name. It was further directed that the First Appellate Authority shall submit a report to the State Information Commission on or before 5th October, 2011. (vi) As the order of the Respondent No.2 was not complied with within the stipulated period, the Petitioner sent reminders dated 10th October, 2011 and 2nd December, 2011 to the Respondent No.2 i.e. the State Information Commission and a letter dated 27th April, 2012 to the Respondent No.3 i.e. Mr. Suresh Kakani, the First Appellate Authority and Deputy Secretary, Urban Development Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai requesting the said authorities to inform the Petitioner about the steps taken by the concerned authority in pursuance of the order passed by the Respondent No.2. i.e. the State Information Commission. (vii) As the Respondent No.3 i.e. the Fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nnot be countenanced. The said affidavit dated 29th October, 2012 was considered by the Division Bench of this Court on 8th February, 2013 and it was observed that, this Court was not satisfied about the fact that the State has made genuine efforts to comply with the order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the State Information Commission. It was further directed that if the documents could not be found, an offence could have been registered as directed by the State Information Commission. It was further observed in the said order dated 8th February, 2013 that only by way of indulgence that this Court was granting further time to the learned AGP to enable the State to take appropriate action in the matter as the State had accepted the said order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the State Information Commission. 6. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit in rejoinder dated 17th January, 2013 to the affidavit in reply of the Respondent No.3, Mr. Suresh Kakani. In the affidavit in rejoinder, the Petitioner has stated that till date, the liability and accountability with reference to the said file in question has not yet been fixed by the Respondents and therefore, the various conten....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....epartment and subsequently vide Government Resolution dated 14.9.2000, all the matters under ULC Act were transferred to the Urban Development Department. Since the said subject was transferred along with the staff and the office record, it is difficult to pinpoint at what exact point of time, the documents sought by the petitioner were misplaced. (ii) The Government Resolution No.ULC1089/2123/NA.JA.KA. DHA.2, dated 21.8.1996 was issued when the subject of ULC was with the Housing and Special Assistance Department and it appears to have been issued on a file bearing case No.2123, created in the year 1989 by the Housing and Special Assistance Department. As per the office procedure, the Housing and Special Assistance Department had maintained Common Case Register for the year 1989-1990 and Case Register numbers given therein were in continuation of the earlier numbers. I further say that from the said Government Resolution dated 21.8.1996, it is noticed that the subject matter of the said Government Resolution was started in the year 1989 and the Reference Register Number mentioned by the Housing and Special Assistance Department was 2123 and the concerned Branch was ULC-2. A per....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....th has exceeded his jurisdiction and has tried to overreach the order passed by the State Information Commission dated 18th August, 2011. Mr. Salimath has no authority to decide nor to register an offence. Mr. Salimath was expected to follow the order passed by the State Information Commission in its true letter and spirit. 9. Mr. Suresh Kakani and Mr. S.K. Salimath cannot be allowed to raise or take a spacious plea that the order passed by the State Information Commissioner dated 18th August, 2011 cannot be complied with. The State Information Commissioner has passed the said order which binds the Respondent No.3. 10. It is pertinent to note the preamble to the Right to Information Act, 2005 which reads as under : "An Act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. WHEREAS the Constitution of India has established democra....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 8. (1) Save as otherwise provided in any law for the time being in force, no public record shall be destroyed or otherwise disposed of except in such manner and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed. (2) No record, which is more than hundred years old on the date of commencement of the Maharashtra Public Records Act, 2005, shall be destroyed except where in the opinion of the Director, it is so defaced or is in such condition that it cannot be put to any archival use. 9. Whoever contravenes any of the provisions of section 4 or section 8 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." 12. 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 Sect....