wp4941.11 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4941 OF 2011 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, Indian Citizen, Age-66 years, Occupation:Pensioner, C/o-Dr.A.B. Boralkar, Residing at: “Renuka” Padampura, Aurangabad, Pin-431 005. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Hon’ble Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.5879 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9303 OF 2011 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, Indian Citizen, Age-68 years, Occupation:Pensioner, C/o-Dr.A.B. Boralkar, Residing at: “Renuka” Padampura, Aurangabad, Pin-431 005. ...PETITIONER. wp4941.11 2 VERSUS 1) The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2) The Hon’ble Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, General Administrative Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 3) The Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, Administrative Building, Opp. Mantralaya, Madam Cama Road, Mumbai-400 032 ...RESPONDENTS. WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6370 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9845 OF 2011 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, Indian Citizen, Age-68 years, Occupation:Pensioner, C/o-Dr.A.B. Boralkar, R/o-“Renuka” Padampura, Aurangabad - 431 005. ...PETITIONER. VERSUS 1) The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. 2) The Hon’ble Chief Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, ...RESPONDENTS. wp4941.11 3 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.753 OF 2011 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.10221 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7479 OF 2004 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Public Works Department ...RESPONDENT WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.7350 OF 2009 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.10221 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7479 OF 2004 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, Indian Citizen, Age-65 years, Occupation:Pensioner, C/o-Dr.A.B. Boralkar, Residing at “Renuka” Padampura, Aurangabad - 431 005. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ...RESPONDENT. WITH wp4941.11 4 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10345 OF 2011 IN REVIEW APPLICATION NO.10221 OF 2005 IN WRIT PETITION NO.7479 OF 2004 Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, Indian Citizen, Age-68 years, Occupation:Pensioner, C/o-Dr.A.B. Boralkar, Residing at- “Renuka” Padampura, Aurangabad, Pin - 431 005. ...APPLICANT. VERSUS 1) The Secretary, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032, 2) The Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai-400 032. ...RESPONDENTS. ... Shri. Suresh Gangadhar Dharasurkar, Party in Person for Petitioner/Applicant in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Applications. Shri. V.B. Ghatge, A.G.P. for Respondents in all the Writ Petitions and Civil Applications. ... wp4941.11 5 CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL AND T.V. NALAWADE, JJ. RESERVED ON : 4TH OCTOBER, 2011 PRONOUNCED ON : 17TH OCTOBER, 2011 ORDER [PER NARESH H. PATIL, J.] : 1. We have heard Party-in-Person and the A.G.P. for Respondents, extensively, in respect of the issues in Writ Petition No.4941 of 2011, Writ Petition No.5879 of 2011, Writ Petition No.6370 of 2011 and the Civil Applications filed in these Writ Petitions and also the Civil Applications filed in Review Application No.10221 of 2005. 2. The Party-in-Person had filed Writ Petition No.5093 of 1997 (Writ Petition No.7479 of 2004) making following prayer clauses: “(a) to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or writ of wp4941.11 6 Mandamus order or direction calling for the records and proceedings from the file of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal Mumbai Bench in Original Application No.154/97 and after going into the legality and propriety of the Judgement and order dated 26.6.1997; i. The order dated 23.1.1991 issued by the Respondents thereby removing the Petitioner from service (Exhibit ‘U’) be quashed. ii. Punish the authorities concerned for disobeying the directions given by the Hon. High Court Mumbai dated 17.12.1996 and thereby making CONTEMPT OF THIS HONOURABLE HIGH COURT MUMBAI (Exhibit ‘CC’) and iii. Quash and set aside the wp4941.11 7 order dated 23.1.1991 issued by the Respondents thereby removing the petitioner from the service and further reinstate the Petitioner into service as Deputy Engineer (Elec.) in PROMOTEE CADRE as per the Judgement dated 17.12.1996 of Honourable High Court Mumbai in Contempt Petition No.201/90 (Exhibit ‘TT’) b. Such other and further reliefs as this Honourable High Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case be kindly granted. c. Costs of this Writ Petition be provided for to the Petitioner.” 3. By Judgment and order dated 2nd August, 2005, the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: A.P. DESHPANDE & VASANTI A. NAIK, JJ.) dismissed wp4941.11 8 the Writ Petition No.7479 of 2004 as devoid of any merits. 4. The Party-in-Person preferred Review Application No.10221 of 2005 in Writ Petition No. 7479 of 2004. By an order dated 18th September, 2007, the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: NARESH H. PATIL & R.M. BORDE, JJ.) rejected the Review Application and disposed of the Civil Application Nos. 11014 of 2005, 11617 of 2005, 2354 of 2006 and 5936 of 2006. 5. The Party-in-Person preferred Special Leave Petition being Petition for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No.23553 of 2010, in respect of the order passed in Writ Petition No.7479 of 2004 and the Review Application No.10221 of 2005. By an order dated 26th November, 2010, the Apex Court passed following Order: “Learned counsel for the wp4941.11 9 petitioner prays that special leave petition be dismissed as withdrawn. Ordered accordingly. A copy of this order be sent to the Registrar of Aurangabad Bench, Bombay High Court before which this matter is pending.” 6. On 26th August, 2011, the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ.) passed following order in Writ Petition Nos. 4941 of 2011, 5879 of 2011 and 6370 of 2011: “1. These petitions are not on today’s Board. However, at the request of the Party-in-Person, production of these petitions is allowed. The petitioner, who is present in the Court, submits that the orders that would be passed in these petitions will have a bearing on the petitions pending before wp4941.11 10 another Bench of this Court. 2. In order to avoid any conflicting orders and so that the petitioner can effectively argue all the petitions, the present petitions be tagged along with bunch of Civil Applications including Civil Application No.10463/2008, etc. and Review Application No. 10221/2004 (in W.P. No. 7479/2004), and be placed before the appropriate Bench.” 7. Consequent to the order dated 26th August, 2011 passed by the Division Bench of this Court (CORAM: B.R. GAVAI AND M.T. JOSHI, JJ.), quoted above, these three Writ Petitions were placed before us for hearing. 8. In these Petitions, the Party-in-Person raises issue in respect of supply of copies/documents, relevant information as per the wp4941.11 11 provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Party-in-Person further prays to refund 1/3rd amount of pension, awarding of cost as per provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Party-in-Person has also prayed for declaration that punishment of removal imposed on 23rd January, 1991 on the Petitioner was not in accordance with the recommendations of the Enquiry Officer dated 15th May, 1987. 9. Detail affidavit in reply is placed on record by the State through Mr. Dinesh Vasudeo Dalvi, Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Public Works Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai, in the proceedings of Writ Petition No. 4941 of 2011. We have perused the material placed before us including the reply filed on behalf of the State and considered the oral submissions advanced before us. In respect of the relief sought under the provisions of Right to wp4941.11 12 Information Act, 2005, the Party-in-Person has alternate efficacious statutory remedy. The issues relating to enquiry held against the Party-in- Person and consequent order thereof, have already been addressed in the earlier concluded proceedings of Writ Petition No.7479 of 2004 and Review Application No.10221 of 2005. In the facts of the case and the stand adopted by the Respondent State, we are of the view that these issues cannot be re-agitated again and again under different form, proceedings. 10. Considering the record placed before us and the reply filed by the State, we are of the view that the parties have raised questions of facts. Consideration of the issues raised by the Party-in-Person, in the facts of the case, would amount to re-appreciating the facts of the case, which exercise was done at the initial stages. 11. After considering the reply filed by the wp4941.11 13 State and the perusal of the earlier proceedings and the orders passed therein, we are not inclined to invoke our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction. 12. The Writ Petition Nos.4941 of 2011, 5879 of 2011 and 6370 of 2011 stand rejected. 13. In the light of the order passed above, all pending Civil Applications in these three Writ Petitions are also disposed of. 14. In the light of the order passed above all pending Civil Applications in Review Application No.10221 of 2005 are also disposed of. [T.V. NALAWADE, J.] [NARESH H. PATIL, J.] asb/OCT11