-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2873 OF 2009 Devdatta D.Gaikawad ... Petitioner versus Information Commissioner, Konkan Division & Others ... Respondents Mr. V.A. Gangal with Ms. Vinda P. Pandey, instructed by Mr. S.S. Deshmukh, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kadam, Advocate General, with Mr. S.R. Nargolkar, AGP, and Smt. S.S. Bhende, AGP, for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Sudhir Prabhu for respondent No.2. CORAM: P.B. MAJMUDAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE: APRIL 21, 2010. P.C. By way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged the orders passed by the Information Commissioner, Konkan Division, dated 29th September, 2008 (at Exhibit-F to the petition), 12th February, 2009 (at Exhibit- G to the petition) and 25th August, 2009 (at Exhibit-J to the petition). By the impugned order dated 12th February, 2009, the Commissioner has imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner for not providing the information to respondent No.2. -2- 2. Respondent No.2 has sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the relevant papers were already forwarded to the State and the State Government had not taken any decision in connection with the report of Sudhir Joshi Committee, it was not possible for the petitioner to give any information as sought for by respondent No.2. It is not necessary for us to consider the detailed submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the effect as to whether such report could have been made available to respondent No.2 or not. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, after taking instructions from his client who is present before the Court, submitted that since the application was made before the wrong authority as the report is with the State Government and which is under the consideration of the State Government, he would like to withdraw his original application, which is at Exhibit-A to the petition, submitted to the petitioner under the Act and file a fresh application to the State Government with a prayer to provide the information from the State Government. Since the learned counsel for respondent No.2 wants to withdraw his original application which was submitted before the present petitioner, it is not necessary for us to examine the arguments canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In view of the said request on the part of respondent No.2, we permit him to withdraw the application at Exhibit-A to the petition made before the petitioner with liberty to apply to the State Government by filing -3- appropriate application to the State Government seeking the information as sought for from the petitioner. If any such application is made, the State Government may decide the same in accordance with law. We may clarify that we are not expressing any opinion as to whether the report or any such information which the respondent No.2 may ask for can be given to him or not but the State Government is directed to pass appropriate order on the application, if preferred, by respondent No.2 in accordance with law. We may further clarify that the withdrawal of the application by Respondent No.2 which was initially preferred before the petitioner should not be taken into consideration by the State and the application should not be rejected on the said ground i.e. Respondent No.2 has withdrawn the application made earlier before the Petitioner. Needless to say that the application should be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law. In short, the State Government shall take appropriate decision on such application, if preferred by respondent No.2, independently of the present proceedings in accordance with law. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the issue in any manner. 3. In view of the above, the impugned orders at Annexures-F and G are quashed and set aside. The Petition is disposed of accordingly. -4- 4. Before parting with this order, the Court expresses its gratitude to the learned Advocate General who has rendered valuable assistance to the Court on the question of law involved in the matter. P. B. MAJMUDAR, J. R.G. KETKAR, J.