1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3911/2010 FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ..VS.. SHILADEVI NARAYAN MUNESHWAR & ORS - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 20, 2011. Heard Shri N.S. Deshpande, the learned counsel for the petitioner. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the State Information Commissioner on 6.5.2010 allowing an appeal filed by the complainant/ respondent no.1 and directing the petitioner to provide necessary information, free of cost to the respondent no.1 by registered post within 15 days from the receipt of the order and also pay an amount of Rs.2000/- to the respondent no.1 towards mental and financial harassment caused to her. It is the case of the petitioner that by the order dated 12.3.2009 the respondent no.2 directed the respondent no.3 to decide the appeal filed by the respondent no.1, if not decided earlier and also supply the information to the respondent no.1 after securing the same from the petitioner. As the information was not received by the respondent no.1 in pursuance of the order dated 12.3.2009 an appeal was filed by the respondent no.1 before the State Information 2 Commissioner. The petitioners filed a reply to the appeal filed by the respondent no.1 before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2, however by the impugned order dated 6.5.2010, allowed the complaint filed by the respondent no.1 and directed the petitioners to supply the information and pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the respondent no.1. The order passed by the respondent no.2 State Information Commissioner appears to be just and proper. The only submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the information could not have been supplied to the respondent no.1 in view of the provisions of section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information act 2005, is not well founded and is liable to be rejected. The information which was sought by the respondent no.1 was not such an information which would have impeded the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The respondent no.1 had merely sought some of the documents for presenting her case before the enquiry committee. The impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 on 6.5.2010 appears to be just and proper and calls for no interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. Hence, in the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP