Bombay High Court
RAMESH GORSING PAWARversusTHE STATE OF MAHRASHTRA AND OTHERS
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as the petitioner has not established any denial of information or entitlement to compensation.
Summary
The petitioner filed an RTI application for information on Primary/Secondary Ashram Schools, but the Public Information Officer directed him to approach each school separately and the petitioner did not receive the information. He appealed to the first appellate authority under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which ordered all the schools to provide the information free of cost. The petitioner then appealed to the State Information Commission alleging deliberate denial of information and claiming mental and financial exploitation, seeking compensation, but he was absent at the hearing and the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal and the compensation claim. The High Court examined the record, noted that separate information officers exist at each school and that the appellate authority had already directed the schools to supply the information, and found no evidence of denial or exploitation. Consequently, the Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it without awarding compensation.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation for alleged denial of information and mental/financial exploitation under the RTI Act
- Whether the order of the State Information Commission directing schools to provide information can be set aside
- Whether the petitioner was denied a hearing in the appellate proceedings
Legislation cited
- Right to Information Act, 2005 — s. 19(1)
Subjects
- Right to Information Act
- RTI
- Compensation
- Mental exploitation
- Financial exploitation
- Writ petition
- Information officer
- Appellate authority
- State Information Commission
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:10343-DB
1 2-WP-4565-20.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 4565 OF 2020
RAMESH GORSING PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS
...
Mr. D. K. Dagadkhair, Advocate for the Petitioner
Mrs. V. P. Dama, AGP for Respondent/State
...
CORAM : NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI AND
VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, JJ.
DATE : 04th MARCH, 2026
PER COURT :
1. The petitioner by application dated 08/09/2015 sought
information under the Right to Information Act, from public
information officer in respect of ‘Primary / Secondary Ashram
Schools’ on 21 points. The public information officer forwarded the
application of petitioner to the concerned Ashram Schools situated
within his jurisdiction and asked the petitioner to approach the
respective Ashram Schools and seek information from Headmaster
or School Management by applying afresh. He also directed all the
Ashram Schools situated within his jurisdiction to supply information
to the petitioner. Since the petitioner did not receive the
information, he approached the first appellate authority under
Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. The first appellate authority, after hearing the
SVH
2 2-WP-4565-20.odt
petitioner, on 14/06/2017 directed all the Ashram Schools to supply
the information sought by the petitioner, free of costs. Petitioner,
thereafter preferred appeal before respondent No.4 State
Information Commission contending that deliberately the
information is not supplied to him and he was not heard. Since there
was mental and financial exploitation of the petitioner, he be given
compensation. The said appeal is dismissed observing that the first
appellate authority has directed to supply the information to the
petitioner. Petitioner did not attend the hearing of first appeal. Even
before respondent No.4, he remained absent, hence, his appeal is
disposed of. Petitioner is aggrieved by this order.
3. Heard learned advocate for petitioner and learned AGP
for respondents / State. Perused the record.
4. Record indicates that there are separate information
officers at every Ashram School. Petitioner can approach there and
seek necessary information. Though the petitioner was absent
before first appellate authority / respondent No.3, the said authority
has directed the concerned Ashram Schools to supply the
information to the petitioner, free of costs. Even before respondent
No.4, petitioner remained absent. The contention raised by the
petitioner that deliberately the information was not supplied to him
and no hearing was taken and therefore, he suffered financial and
mental exploitation, cannot be accepted. No case is made out by
SVH
3 2-WP-4565-20.odt
the petitioner for compensation.
5. We find no merit in the contentions raised by the
petitioner in present petition. No case is made out by the petitioner
to interfere with the impugned order and award him compensation.
The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed.
(VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV, J.) (NITIN B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)
SVH
Checking your session…