IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 644 OF 2007 COMMISSIONER, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PANAJI ... Petitioner Versus GOA INFORMATION COMMISSION AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Shivan Dessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Ms. Sapna Mordekar, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Mr. G. Shirodkar, Addl.Government Advocate for the respondent no.2. Mr. R.G. Ramani, Advocate for the Respondent no.3. Coram:- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. Date:- 21st July, 2008 P.C. 1. Heard Counsels appearing for parties. With their consent, Petition disposed off. 2. At the outset, the learned Advocate appearing for the Goa Information Commission, seeks to withdraw from the proceedings and orally applies for discharge. 3. In the light of the fact that the Commission is a State Body and its order is under challenge, presence of the Commission in this case is not necessary. The oral application for discharge by the concerned Lawyer is allowed and the Advocate who filed Wakaltnama for the respondent no.1 stands discharged from the proceedings. 4. This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order passed by the Director of Urban Development, Panaji dated 14.5.2007 and that of Goa Information Commission dated 1.11.2007. 5. These orders are passed on an application of the respondent no.3/original applicant seeking certain information from the Public Information Officer, Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji, Panaji. The information is sought in the form of application, copy of which is at Exbt.P 3. Initially the Office of Superintendent/Information Officer replied to the third respondent that there are no shops bearing registration numbers mentioned in the application and as far as other information is concerned, the Corporation does not possess the same. Yet, it forwarded to the applicant/respondent no.3, a copy of the letter which was addressed by Panaji Municipal Market Tenants' Association to the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Panaji dated 24.5.2007. 6. Aggrieved by the communication dated 26.3.2007 Annexure P-4, the third respondent approached the appellant authority. The appellant authority by order dated 14.5.2007 directed that the information be provided as sought by the respondent no.3. 7. The petitioners approached in second appeal to the Commissioner and by the impugned order their appeal is being dismissed and it is directed that the information should be provided as per the order dated 14.5.2007. 8. With the able assistance of Counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the Petition and its Annexures. Upon a query as to what details Respondent no.3 seeks from the Corporation and whether the application presented was clear enough to indicate the said information, both sides agreed that the information sought is whether there was any specific policy framed by the Corporation for allotment of shops in the subject Municipal Market, whether the subject Municipal Market has shops which have been allotted by the Corporation or not, details of such allotment, whether all shops have been allotted and occupied by the allottees or some of them are vacant and unoccupied, whether the shops are in possession of the allottees or whether the Corporation permits any transfers of the same, and if such transfers are permitted,then under any policy decision is taken in that behalf or not. Lastly, the Corporation would intimate as to whether there is Municipal Market Tenants' Association and whether the same is recognized by the Commissioner or not. This information, together with the Plan of subject Municipal Market, would be provided to respondent no.3 by the petitioner Corporation on the respondent no.3, paying requisite charges within a period of 8 weeks from today. 9. In the light of these agreed statements, Writ Petition No.644/2007 is disposed off. All orders challenging the same stand modified accordingly. 10. No order as to costs. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. cg