IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.399 of 2007 Zarir Phiroz Khariwala ..Petitioner vs. 1.The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and others ..Respondents Mr.Shiraz Rustomjee i/b M/s Crawford Bayley andCo. for petitioner. Mrs.A.K.Savla for respondent nos. 1 to 4. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR C.J. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR C.J. CORAM: SWATANTER KUMAR C.J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. & S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J. 16th April, 2007 16th April, 2007 16th April, 2007 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the parties for some time. 2. The petitioner claims to have served upon the respondents his questions for information in accordance withRule 6(1) i.e. format provided under the Maharashtra Right to Information Rules, 2002. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that all the requisite information claimed by the petitioner has been given to him and in fact the inspection of files including furnishing the xerox copies was completed in the office of the respondents. It is entirely unnecessary for the Court to go into this controversy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, other information has been furnished but, however, no information with regard to the plot nos.321, 334, 335 and 336 stating as to which building is still to be evacuted and of which plot is not furnished which is essential for the petitioner before he can proceed in accordance with law. We direct the respondent Corporation to furnish this information to the petitioner within four weeks from today and if such information is not available with them they should still write to the petitioner expressing their inability in that behalf. Petition is disposed of with the above directions. ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) ( CHIEF JUSTICE ) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI J.)