1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.574/2010 Sanjay s/o Shivaji Dhapse, age 39 years, Occ. Business, R/o House No.1483, Vanjar Galli, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. Petitioner V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra. 2. The Police Inspector, Tophkhana Police Station, Ahmednagar, Tq. & Distict Ahmednagar. Respondents. ---- Shri S.M, Ganachari h/f Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. B. R. Khekale, learned APP for respondents. ----- CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. DATE : 2 nd AUGUST, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the 2 consent of parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage. 3. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of Constitution of India, pray that the impugned order dated 16.2.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2009 as well as impugned order dated 4.7.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmendagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No. 213/2009 be quashed and set aside. 4. The petitioner claims to be the Ahmednagar District Head of All India Human Rights and Citizen Option and also is a Corporator, had filed an application to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited Chikalthana (henceforth referred to as ‘HPCL”) for getting information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 2.1.2009. The petitioner contends that, he was asked by HPCL to send demand draft of Rs.10/- on 13.1.2009. Accordingly the petitioner sent demand draft of Rs.10/-, drawn on State Bank of India on 24.1.2009 to HPCL. However, Senior Regional Manager and Central Public Information Officer of HPCL informed the petitioner that said information was not available on record as well as contended that since the information is in respect of the commercial value of the company,same cannot be provided, by 3 communication dated 6.2.2009. Copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.A page 18). 5. Hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that considering the approach and attitude of HPCL, the petitioner felt that HPCL has deliberately refused to give him the information and cheated him, and therefore filed complaint with Tophkhana police Station, Ahmednagar on 11.2.2009 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.’B’ page 20). However, since the police authorities did not take cognizance of the said complaint, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.213/2009 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar and prayed for issuance of directions under section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure on 1.4.2009 and learned Chief Judicial Magistrate issued show cause notice to the non applicants, why directions sought by the applicant should not be issued, by order dated 15.5.2009 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.C collectively page 22 to 25). However, after hearing both parties, learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmednagar rejected the said application by passing order on 4.7.2009 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.C colly. Page 26 and 27). 6. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the said order, dated 4 4.7.2009 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Application No. 162/2009 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on 18.9.2009 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar issued notice to the respondents therein on 29.9.2009. The prosecution/respondent filed its say in the said revision on 18.1.2010 and submitted that said revision be dismissed since not maintainable. However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dismissed said revision by passing order on 16.2.2010 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.’D’ colly page 28 to 38). 7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both said impugned orders, dated 4/7/2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmednagar and order dated 16.2.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, the petitioner has preferred present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for the quashment of both the said impugned orders. 8. After hearing rival submissions advanced by both learned respective counsel for the parties, the controversy revolves around the aspect that “Whether the remedy is available to the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, upon refusal of information sought as of right ?” Learned APP pointed out that since the matter 5 comes under Right to Information Act and since the applicant has grievance regarding non supply of certain documents/information, he has remedy available to approach to higher authority in the appeal and he could have availed such remedy but inspite of taking recourse to the said forum available to him, he filed complaint with the police station and thereafter approached to the Court by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.213/2009 and therefore learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Ahmednagar rightly rejected said application and consequently learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar rightly dismissed Criminal Revision application preferred against the said order. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, apparently, it appears that, subject matter is within the purview of Right To Information Act, 2005 and statutory remedy is available to the petitioner thereunder upon refusal of the information sought as of right and petitioner may avail such remedy, if he desires so, and therefore, no interference is called for in the aforesaid impugned orders dated 4.7.2009 and 16.2.2010, and accordingly, present petition deserves to be dismissed. 6 10. In the result, present petition stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged accordingly. ( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. ) aaa/574.10 ***