PRALHAD ANANT GAIKARversusSTATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER MAHARASHTRA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION AND ORS

                                                                       902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




                                                                                    Rekha Patil

                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                       CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 2594 OF 2024


                      Pralhad Anant Gaikar                                     …Petitioner
                             Versus
                      State Information Commissioner Maharashtra            …Respondents
                      State information Commission and Ors.


                      Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar with H. S. Pawaskar, Atharva Jagtap and
                            Rohan Patil, for the Petitioner.
                      Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. GP with Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP, for the
                            Respondents No. 1 to 3-State.
                      Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Dinesh R. Shinde, Anish Kikle, Omhari
                            Fawade and Akshada Nagrale, for the Respondent No.4.


                                            CORAM:        SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                          GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.
                                            DATED:        23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                      PC:-

                      1.     Heard Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar, learned Counsel appearing for

                      the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. Kavita Solunke, Additional G. P.

                      appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State and Mr. Kishor

                      Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4.


                      2.     In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order

                      dated 6th October, 2023, passed by the Second Appellate Authority

REKHA                 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ( for
PRAKASH
PATIL
Digitally signed by
REKHA PRAKASH
PATIL
Date: 2026.09.28
18:01:26 +0530


                                                     Page 1 of 8
                                                      902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




short, ‘Act of 2005’), whereby the Appeal preferred by the

Petitioner /Applicant was declined on the following grounds:-

      “ Subject : Regarding the second appeal filed under Section 19(3)
                  of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

      On scrutiny of the second appeal filed u/s 19(3) of the Right to
      Information Act, 2005 against Range Forest Officer Kalyan on
      10/03/2023, it has been observed that along with the Second
      Appeal, since two applications of different dates have been
      attached, hence second appeal is irregular. Therefore, the said
      second appeal cannot be filed under Section 19(8)(d) of the
      Right to Information Act, 2005. This letter is being issued with
      the approval of the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner,
      Konkan Bench.”



3.    It appears from the material on record that the Petitioner

had submitted an Application under the Act of 2005, on 30 th

March, 2021. However, the said Application could not be pursued

due to the outbreak of the COVID-2019 Pandemic. According to

the Petitioner, he also did not receive any response to his first

Application dated 30th March, 2021.             Situated thus, on 24 th

November, 2022, the Petitioner had submitted another Application,

seeking the same information, as in the earlier Application dated

30th March, 2021.




                                Page 2 of 8
                                                      902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




4.    The information sought by the Petitioner/Applicant as

apparent on the face of the Application dated 24 th November, 2022,

are as follows:-

      “1. The applicant seeks to obtain certified copies of all the
      documents submitted along with the first application for getting
      the said saw mill license.

      2. It cannot be understood about Plot No./Survey No. 119 R
      mentioned in the said licence. Therefore, it should be clarified
      and explained, as to whether the No. 119 is plot number/ Survey
      number/ Pardi number/ House number or else and also clarify
      what is meant by R.

      3. The certified copies of the documents submitted at the time of
      renewal of license by the license holder, while renewing the
      License from 01/01/2020 to 31/12/2020.”

             In the said Application there is a ‘NOTE’ added to
      the following effect:-

      “NOTE: Earlier on 30.3.2021, an application was made under the
      Right to Information Act, 2005. However, there was a lockdown
      due to COVID, therefore the information could not be received.
      Hence, fresh application is required to be filed.”



5.    By the order dated 19th December, 2022, the learned State

Public Information Officer, in the office of the Forest Range Officer,

Kalyan, had declined the information sought by the Petitioner on

the ground that, the Petitioner has sought information which

pertains to a third party and the concerned person (third party)

has refused to provide such information. By relying upon Section




                                Page 3 of 8
                                                 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




11(1) of the Act of 2005 and the certificate of non-disclosure

submitted to his office, the Information Officer has refused to

provide the information to the Petitioner.



6.    Being aggrieved by order dated 19 th December, 2022, the

Petitioner had preferred First Appeal, which was also dismissed by

the First Appellate Forum by the order dated 25 th January, 2023, by

reiterating similar reasons, as was cited by the Information Officer.

Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner had preferred      Second Appeal

under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005, which was not entertained

by the impugned order dated 6th October, 2023 on the grounds

noted therein. Hence, this Writ Petition.



7.    The impugned order has been assailed on several grounds

including the ground that the Authority has not properly exercised

jurisdiction under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2005 while declining

the information sought by the Petitioner. However, we have noted

that the Second Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was not

entertained by the Second Appellate Forum merely on the ground

that there were two Applications, which were attached to the

memorandum of Appeal.        In fact, the order dated 6 th October,




                              Page 4 of 8
                                                  902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




2023, appears to be a communication of the decision of the State

Information Commissioner, i.e., the Second Appellate Authority not

to entertain the second Appeal although, there is no such order of

the Appellate Authority available on record.



8.      Mr. Kishor Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the

Respondent No.4, has submitted that the information sought by

the Applicant/Writ Petitioner, being that of third party, the

Authorities have rightly refused to provide the same by invoking

the provision of Section 11 of the Act of 2005. Mr. Patil has,

however, submitted, in his usual fairness, that the impugned order

dated 6th October, 2023, is not an order passed in the Second

Appeal on merit but was issued on a purely technical ground. Ms.

Kavita Solunke, learned Addl. GP has also submitted that the order

dated     6th October, 2023, is not an order on the merit of the

Appeal.



9.      It may be correct to say that the information pertaining to a

third party would not ordinarily be liable to be parted with by the

Authority unless there is consent of that party. However, in a given

case whether, refusing to furnish such information would be in




                               Page 5 of 8
                                                902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




accordance with law or not would depend, not only on the nature

of the information sought but also the procedure adopted by the

Information Officer while granting or declining such information.



10.   In the present case, as noted above, not only the Information

Officer but even the First Appellate Authority has declined the

information sought for by the Petitioner on the ground that the

same pertains to a third party. The circumstances under which the

two Applications, namely, one on 30th March, 2021 and the other

dated 24th November, 2022, had to be filed by the Petitioner, has

been disclosed.   The Information Officer as well as the First

Appellate Authority did not take exception to the first Application

submitted by the Petitioner but had apparently decided the second

Application on merit.



11.   Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the

learned Second Appellate Authority was not correct in law in

refusing to entertain the second Appeal on a hyper technical

ground that there are two Applications filed by the Petitioner and

hence, the Appeal       was not maintainable. In view of the

explanation available on record leading to submission of two




                             Page 6 of 8
                                                  902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




Applications, we are of the opinion that the approach of the

learned Second Appellate Authority refusing to entertain the

Appeal for a decision on merit was not correct. That apart, in both

the Applications, the Petitioner has sought the same information

and, therefore, it could not have caused any        prejudice to the

interest of the opposite party, even if the Appeal was decided on

merit.



12.      For the reasons stated herein-above, we are of the

considered opinion that the impugned order dated 6 th October,

2023, is unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly set aside.


13.      The Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the Second

Appeal of the Petitioner on merit, based on the second Application,

and pass a reasoned order therein, after giving an opportunity of

hearing to the Appellant and the Respondent, as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the

date of uploading of this order.


14.      All rights and contentions of both the parties are kept open

to be urged before the Second Appellate Authority.




                               Page 7 of 8
                                          902-WP-2594-2024.DOC




15.   With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands

disposed of.




(GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.)                  (SUMAN SHYAM, J.)
                                                             {




                          Page 8 of 8