Bombay High Court
SAVITA PANDURANG BOHIRversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR GP AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The Court held that it will not interfere with the merits but may direct the appellate authority to decide the pending second appeal expeditiously.
Summary
The petitioner, Savita Pandurang Bohir, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent to decide a second appeal (No. 4588 of 2025) filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, within two weeks, and also to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act against a third respondent. The petition alleged that the second respondent had failed to act despite a prior order dated 30 November 2025. The High Court, after hearing counsel, limited its intervention to a procedural direction and declined to examine the merits of the underlying RTI dispute. It ordered the second respondent to decide the pending second appeal as expeditiously as possible, after observing due process and hearing all stakeholders. The writ petition was disposed of without adjudicating the substantive contentions, which remain open for future determination.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the appellate authority to decide a pending second appeal under the Right to Information Act within a specified time frame
- Whether the Court should entertain the merits of the petitioner’s RTI grievance and direct initiation of proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act
Legislation cited
- Right to Information Act, 2005 — s. 20(1)
Subjects
- Writ of mandamus
- Right to Information Act
- Second appeal
- Expeditious disposal
- Civil appellate jurisdiction
- Article 226
- Article 227
Judgment
8-WP.12123.2026.doc
Salunke
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JAYANT
VISHWANATH
SALUNKE
Digitally signed by
JAYANT VISHWANATH
WRIT PETITION NO. 12123 OF 2026
SALUNKE
Date: 2026.09.22
18:38:22 +0530
Savita Pandurang Bohir } Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents
Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. K. B.
Dighe, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. Apurva
Thipsay, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondents-State.
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026
P.C.:
1. By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following
substantive reliefs: -
“[A] That this Hon’ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, be
pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction
directing Respondent No. 2 to decide the Second appeal being Second
Appeal No. 4588 of 2025 filed by the present petitioner on 15 th
December 2025 before Respondent No. 2 Authority within a period of 2
weeks.
[B] That this Hon’ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ jurisdiction
under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, be
pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction
directing Respondent No. 2 to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1)
of the Right to Information Act, 2005 against Respondent No. 3 for
having railed to furnish the information despite the specific and
operative directions issued by Respondent No. 4 by order dated 30 th
November 2025.”
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the
learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the State-
Respondents at some length.
1
8-WP.12123.2026.doc
3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner confines the prayers
sought qua the instant Petition to a direction to the Respondent
No.2 to decide the Second Appeal being Second Appeal No. 4588 of
2025 filed by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act,
2005, expeditiously.
4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue raised
before us, we are not inclined to delve into the merits of the matter.
However, we expect the Respondent No. 2 to decide the proceedings
in the Second Appeal No. 4588 of 2025 pending before it as
expeditiously as possible after following the due process of law and
after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders.
5. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
6. Suffice it to state that we have not adverted to the merits of
the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.