1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2066 OF 2010. Mr. Tushar Dhananjay Mandlekar -: VERSUS :- The State Information Commissioner and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri T.D. Mandlekar (In-person) and Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for respondent nos. 1 and 2. Learned A.G.P. has invited attention to Annexure- Q at page Nos. 101 and 102 of the Writ Petition to urge that the requisite information is already supplied to the petitioner. The information sought is about issuance of temporary licenses. The approach of the Assistant Traffic Commissioner in reply to that application on 02.09.2008 vide issue nos. 7 and 8 shows an unbecoming attitude. The Second Appellate Authority specifically observed that as per Section 206 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the obligation is upon the police officer to issue temporary licenses and direction 2 was issued, very same officer has on 04.10.2009 issued the document at Annexure-Q. That document mentions that total 3,44,875 licenses were taken in custody by the police department and against it, temporary acknowledgments or temporary licenses have been issued. Learned A.G.P. is not in a position to point out from the accompanying chart in how many cases the temporary licence has been issued and in how many cases temporary acknowledgment has been issued. According to Shri Mandlekar, Petitioner In-person, the word in Marathi used in said communication dated 04.10.2009 cannot be construed as temporary licence. His contention is only it shows issuance of temporary authorization and not license. I do not find it necessary to go into the said controversy. Thus requisite information is not supplied inspite of the orders. Respondent no.3 has failed to comply with the directions issued by the second Appellate Authority. In the circumstances, the said respondent no.3 is given one opportunity to comply fully with the directions issued. The said information be given to the petitioner by 31.07.2010. Respondent no.3 shall also pay cost of Rs. 2000/- to the petitioner in the meanwhile. According to Shri Mandlekar, petitioner – in- person, the Public Information Officer appointed in the department himself functions as First Appellate Authority and 3 because of this role the problem has arisen. The respondent no.2 to look into the matter and take appropriate steps to avoid repetition. Writ Petition is thus disposed of with above directions. Rule accordingly. Needless to mention that if the petitioner find some lacunae in compliance, he is at liberty to approach the Court again in the matter. JUDGE Rgd.