1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4064/2009 Vijay K.Gulhane Vs. The State Information Commissioner and others. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Courts orders or directions Court’s or Judge’s orders and Registrar’s orders. Mr. U. S. Dastane, Adv. for the petitioner. Mr. R.S. Bhuibhar, Adv. for respondent no.1 Mr. C.S. Kaptan, Adv. for respondents 2 to 4. Mr. J.B. Kasat, Adv. for respondent no.5. CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATE : 7TH JULY, 2010. 1] Advocate Dastane states that respondent no.6 is not concerned with the controversy. 2] The petitioner demanded certain information from respondent no.5 and respondent no.5 has directed the petitioner to approach respondent no.4-College for that information and that is how the matter will before the First Appellate Court and thereafter Second Authority. Respondent no.4-College refused to supply information to the petitioner but then respondent no.5 filed reply before respondent no.2 and accepted to supply necessary information. They have also pointed out that under misconception, the information was not supplied. 3] In view of this reply, it is apparent that the grievance of the petitioner is sufficiently redressed. The 2 learned counsel contends that the petitioner is entitled to information/copies free of costs because of expiry of statutory period. It is clear that respondent no. 5 will look into the provisions of law and supply the information in accordance with law. The petitioner shall approach respondent no.5 in that respect on any working day with advance intimation. 4] I, therefore, find that nothing survives in the present writ petition. The question raised whether respondent no.4 is public authority or not need not be gone into. JUDGE Ambulkar.