IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION REVIEW REVIEW REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.74 OF 2008 PETITION (L) NO.74 OF 2008 PETITION (L) NO.74 OF 2008 inin in CHAMBER CHAMBER CHAMBER SUMMONS NO.209 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.209 OF 2008 SUMMONS NO.209 OF 2008 inin in WRIT WRIT WRIT PETITION NO.2622 OF 2007 PETITION NO.2622 OF 2007 PETITION NO.2622 OF 2007 XYZ ... Petitioner Vs. 1. The National Aviation Company .. Respondents of India Ltd 8 ors Petitioner appearing in person Mr.Atul Rajyadhyaksha,Sr.Counsel with Mr.Girish Kulkarni and Mr.Mayur Shetty i.b M.V.Kini & Co for Respondent nos. 1,5 and 6 Mr.Mihir Gheewala i.b Desai & Chinoy for Respondent no. 4 Mr.Shailesh Shah, A Panel Counsel with Mr.D.A.Nalawade, Government Pleader & Ms.Geeta Shastri AGP for Respondent no. 8. CORAM CORAM CORAM : : : J.N.Patel and J.N.Patel and J.N.Patel and K.K.Tated, K.K.Tated, K.K.Tated, JJ JJ JJ DATED DATED DATED : 20th January, 2009 : 20th January, 2009 : 20th January, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard. 2. The respondents have filed their affidavit in reply to the Review Petition filed by the petitioner. The same is taken on record. 3. The petitioner seeks review of our order dated 7th August, 2008 passed in Chamber Summons No.209 of 2008 on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of record and in the prayer clause what the petitioner sought was for a direction to the respondents to produce the documents in this Court as specified in Exhibits A and B to the Chamber Summons and in Exhibit T to the petition. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that she has filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 to obtain copies of the documents but, her matter is pending with the Chief Information Commissioner at New Delhi and therefore, she has approached this Court. On 7th August, 2008 this Court has permitted the petitioner to annexe the documents Exhibits A and B to the Chamber Summons and to the petition as Exhibits and permitted her to carry out amendment within a period of two weeks which now the petitioner states that it was done at the time when the Chamber Summons was filed. In view of the fact that the petitioner’s matter is pending before the Chief Information Commissionerand for the present for the decision on the petition, the documents sought for by the petitioner is not required. We make it clear that the petitioner is at liberty to initiate proceedings against the Chief Information Commissioner in accordance with law and as and when she is able to obtain the documents, annexe it to the petition which we have already permitted her by our order dated 7th August, 2008. In view of the fact that the petitioner is prosecuting her matter for obtaining those documents at the level of the Chief Information Commissioner, this Court has refrained from issuing directions to the respondents for production of the documents. The production of the documents mentioned in Exhibits A B and T and that is how the said order came to be passed. Therefore, we do not find that there is an error apparent on the face of record to review our order dated 7th August, 2008 as it has not foreclosed the right of the petitioner relating to the subject matter and to prosecute her case before the Chief Information Commissioner in accordance with Right to Information Act, 2005. The Chief Information Commissioner is not a party to the petition and it will not be proper for us to make any observations in the matter. 5. With these observations, we dispose of the Review Petition. The petitioner requests that the matter be listed after four weeks so that she can take legal advise and engage a competent lawyer of her choice. S.O.17th February, 2009 at 3 p.m. { K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J } K.K.Tated, J } { J.N.Patel, J } J.N.Patel, J } J.N.Patel, J }