1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1572 OF 2010. Mr. Pravin Manikrao Bhusari -: VERSUS :- The State Information Commission, Vidarbha Region & others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri T.D. Mandlekar, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Jaiswal, learned A.G.P. for respondents. Learned counsel for petitioner has pointed out that information sought on several matters in his application dated 30.05.2009 has not been furnished. By way of illustration, he has invited attention to question nos. 2 and 5. He also states that answer given on 29.06.2009 to his application to point out that the information has not been supplied. The appellate Authority as also the Second Appellate Authority have not considered the compliance 2 question wise. It appears that after the first appeal was filed, again on 20.08.2009 certain information was supplied. In that information, in paragraph no.7 the petitioner has been supplied with copy of the representations made by him and said copy was not earlier supplied. While answering paragraph no.8, the appellate Authority has observed that it is not in connection with his department. If the employees of Government Medical College had gone on strike for some demand and had given a representation to the Dean, it is not understood how the Dean can give reply, that it does not concern his department. The 2nd Appellate Authority should have taken serious note of this attitude. There are other such instances or questions which can be multiplied. The petitioner has mentioned those questions in ground (m) of his memo of Writ Petition. However, I am not inclined to go into all this at this stage. Respondent no.3 is directed to supply information as demanded in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act to the petitioner as early as possible and in any case by 31.08.2010. If the information is not supplied by the said date, the said Authority shall pay costs of Rs.5000/- to the petitioner. And if, the petitioner is not satisfied with the information so supplied, he can approach this Court 3 again in the matter. The learned counsel further states that even the Second Appellate Authority has failed to exercise statutory obligations of making inquiry and looking into the grievance as per Section 18 of the Act. The contentions are kept open for consideration at appropriate stage. However, as the petitioner has stated that he is a poor person, and in view of the above discussion the respondent no.3 shall pay of Rs. 1000/- to him towards costs of this Writ Petition by 30.07.2010. In view of above discussion, Writ Petition is partly allowed. Rule is made absolute accordingly. JUDGE Rgd.