1 WP 4154.2011 - ( J ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4154 OF 2011 Social Centre, Market Yard, Ahmednagar Through its Secretary Father Jerome Gonsalves Age : 62 Yrs., Occ. Priest & Social Work, R/o : Market Yard, Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. .... PETITIONER V E R S U S 1. The State of Maharashtra Through its Secretary Department of Planning, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 32. 2. The Commissioner, State Information Commissioner, Aurangabad, Bench at Aurangabad. 3. The Collector/Chairman District Monitoring Committee Ahmednagar, Dist. Ahmednagar. 4. The ssistant Charity Commissioner & Appellate Authority of Information Public Trust Registration Office, Ahmednagar Region, Ahmednagar. 5. Information Officer Public Trust Registration Office, Ahmednagar Region, Ahmednagar.. 2 WP 4154.2011 - ( J ) 6. Ambadas Dattu Thorve Age : Yrs., Occ. : R/o : At Post Khuntephal, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. 7. Devidas Jivaji Gund Age : Yrs., Occ. R/o : Waghluj, Tq. Ashti, Dist. Beed. ..... RESPONDDNTS Mr. Y.V.Kakade, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.M.Tandale, Advocate for Resp. No. 6. CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J. DATE OF JUDGMENT : 05/10/2011 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned counsel for the respective parties, taken up for final hearing. 2. The petitioner assails the order passed by respondent no. 2 in the Appeal. 3. Mr. Kakade, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was not served with any notice of Appeal and the 3 WP 4154.2011 - ( J ) Appeal was decided in absence of the petitioner. The order which was passed, prejudicially affects the right of the petitioner. The learned counsel contends that initially respondent no. 7 had filed application seeking information. When respondent no. 7 was informed that the expenses would be Rs. 45,000/-, the same application was filed by respondent no. 6. The information was supplied to him. Still the Appeal was filed and the impugned order was passed. The learned counsel contends that the Right of Information Act is not applicable to the petitioner. 4. Mr. Tandale, the learned counsel for respondent nos. 6 submits that the notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner has not supplied any information either to the respondent no. 6 or respondent no. 7. Respondent nos. 6 and 7 are independent persons. Respondent no. 6 has filed independent application seeking the said information. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner can not take advantage of his own wrong. The petitioner intentionally did not remain present before the appellate authority. 5. From the order, it appears that the petitioner herein was not present at the time of hearing and could not put-forth his defence. 6. I am not entering into the dispute as to whether the notice was served or not. Suffice it to observe that even in the order it is 4 WP 4154.2011 - ( J ) stated that the petitioner was absent. I think it appropriate to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner. In light of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside and the parties are relegated to respondent no. 2 who shall decide the Appeal afresh after giving opportunity to the parties. The parties shall appear before respondent no. 2 on 20/10/2011. 7. I have not considered other arguments advanced by the learned counsel. The respondent no. 2 shall hear the same on its own merits. 8. The Writ Petition as such is disposed of. No costs. [ S.V. GANGAPURWALA, J.] KNP/WP 4154.2011 - ( J )