1 cri-wp-205-11 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 205 OF 2011 Major Ramesh Shivaji Upadhyay .. Petitioner Vs. 1. Shri Navin Kumar, State Information Commissioner and ors. .. Respondents Mr. Mubin Solkar, appointed Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Rohini Salian, Spl. P.P. for National Investigation Agency. Ms. M. H. Mhatre, APP for State. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U.D.SALVI, JJ. June 22, 2011. P.C. We have heard Mr. Solkar, the learned appointed Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Rohini Salian appears for National Investigation Agency. This petition has been forwarded from the prison where the 2 cri-wp-205-11 petitioner is presently lodged as an under-trial prisoner and the prayers in this petition read as under:- “13. The applicant most humbly prays that the decision of Shri Navin Kumar, State Information Commissioner, Konkan Range in Appeal No. KR2182/2009 be set aside and my second appeal be restored. 14. Sanction to intercept my mobile be quashed for violating norms laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court and also for obtaining the same on fraudulent grounds. It discloses no offence. 15. Home Secretary be directed to order ATS Mumbai not to use intelligence gathered in charge-sheet as per Apex Court’s directions in W.P. 256/1991. 16. Sanction dated 17th January, 2009 by Home Secretary be quashed in the light of inherent contradictions, infirmities and fresh charge-sheet by ATS Rajasthan.” So far as the orders passed under the Right to Information Act are concerned, along with affidavit of Shri Suresh Deshpande, Assistant 3 cri-wp-205-11 Commissioner of Police (ATS), Mumbai, a copy of the GR dated 7/3/2011 has been placed on record and the ATS has been exempted from the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, we do not find any infirmity in the order dated 1/9/2010 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Konkan Region, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner. So far as the petitioner’s grievance regarding the denial to furnish the documents available with the Home Ministry is concerned, the petitioner may move a separate petition on the civil side of this court. So far as the issue regarding the challenge to the order for sanction to intercept the telephone conversation is concerned, the petitioner may agitate the same before the Special Court as and when the trial in MCOC Spl. Case No. 1 of 2009 commences and the Special Court is competent to deal with the same. Hence, the petition is disposed with liberty to the petitioner on the above lines. (U.D.SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)