Dixit 1 WP-3080-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3080 OF 2011 Baijnath K. Yadav & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. S.V. Marwadi, i/b. Ms. Sunita Tiwari, for the Petitioners. Mr. V.B. Konde-Deshmukh, A.P.P., for the Respondent-State. CORAM : A.M. KHANWILKAR & R.G. KETKAR, JJ. DATE : 15 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. Heard the Counsel for the parties. 2. The limited grievance in this Petition is that the direction contained in order dated 20th August, 2011 in Criminal Writ Petition No.2197 of 2011 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. In as much as the present Investigating Officer vide communication dated 29th April, 2011, has furnished reasons to the Petitioners which, according to the Petitioners, were not recorded by the earlier Enquiry Officer, but have been articulated by the newly appointed Enquiry Officer. As regards this grievance of the Petitioners, we called upon the learned A.P.P. to Dixit 2 WP-3080-11 produce the original record. On perusing the original record, it transpires that the previous Enquiry Officer Mr. Deedar Singh had recorded detailed reasons on 29th April, 2011 itself. There is no tangible reason to doubt the correctness of that position, which is reinforced from the original record. Accordingly, the only grievance made by the Petitioners before us, to say the least, is ill advised. 3. This Petition is devoid of merits. Hence, dismissed. 4. At this stage, the Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the copy of the extract of the original record, which was perused by the Court, be made over to the Petitioners. We reject this request as that portion of the file cannot be given on the basis of oral request made by the Petitioners across the Bar. We, however, make it clear that if the Petitioners are entitled to get copy of the said extract through R.T.I. Act, they are free to pursue that option, if so advised. That request will have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with law. 5. The original file is returned back to the learned A.P.P. for the Respondent- State. [R.G. KETKAR, J.] [A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.]