1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.574/2010
Sanjay s/o Shivaji Dhapse,
age 39 years, Occ. Business,
R/o House No.1483, Vanjar Galli,
Ahmednagar,
Tq. & Dist. Ahmednagar. Petitioner
V E R S U S
1. The State of Maharashtra.
2. The Police Inspector,
Tophkhana Police Station,
Ahmednagar,
Tq. & Distict Ahmednagar. Respondents.
----
Shri S.M, Ganachari h/f Mr. Rajendrraa Deshmukh, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mrs. B. R. Khekale, learned APP for respondents.
-----
CORAM : SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J.
DATE : 2nd AUGUST, 2010.
ORAL JUDGMENT :-
1. Heard learned respective counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and with the
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:13:49 :::
2
consent of parties, taken up for final hearing at the admission stage.
3. By the present petition, filed by the petitioner under
Article 227 of Constitution of India, pray that the impugned order
dated 16.2.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge,
Ahmednagar in Criminal Revision Application No.162/2009 as well as
impugned order dated 4.7.2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate Ahmendagar, in Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.
213/2009 be quashed and set aside.
4. The petitioner claims to be the Ahmednagar District Head
of All India Human Rights and Citizen Option and also is a Corporator,
had filed an application to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation
Limited Chikalthana (henceforth referred to as ‘HPCL”) for getting
information under Right to Information Act, 2005 on 2.1.2009. The
petitioner contends that, he was asked by HPCL to send demand draft
of Rs.10/- on 13.1.2009. Accordingly the petitioner sent demand draft
of Rs.10/-, drawn on State Bank of India on 24.1.2009 to HPCL.
However, Senior Regional Manager and Central Public Information
Officer of HPCL informed the petitioner that said information was not
available on record as well as contended that since the information is in
respect of the commercial value of the company,same cannot be provided, by
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:13:49 :::
3
communication dated 6.2.2009. Copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.A
page 18).
5. Hence, it is the contention of the petitioner that
considering the approach and attitude of HPCL, the petitioner felt that
HPCL has deliberately refused to give him the information and cheated
him, and therefore filed complaint with Tophkhana police Station,
Ahmednagar on 11.2.2009 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.’B’ page
20). However, since the police authorities did not take cognizance of
the said complaint, the petitioner filed Criminal Miscellaneous
Application No.213/2009 before learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmednagar and prayed for issuance of directions under section 156
(3) of Code of Criminal Procedure on 1.4.2009 and learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate issued show cause notice to the non applicants,
why directions sought by the applicant should not be issued, by order
dated 15.5.2009 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.C collectively
page 22 to 25). However, after hearing both parties, learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Ahmednagar rejected the said application by
passing order on 4.7.2009 and copy thereof is annexed at (Exh.C colly.
Page 26 and 27).
6. Being aggrieved and dis-satisfied by the said order, dated
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:13:49 :::
4
4.7.2009 the petitioner preferred a Criminal Revision Application No.
162/2009 before learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar on
18.9.2009 and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar issued
notice to the respondents therein on 29.9.2009. The
prosecution/respondent filed its say in the said revision on 18.1.2010
and submitted that said revision be dismissed since not maintainable.
However, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar dismissed
said revision by passing order on 16.2.2010 and copy thereof is
annexed at (Exh.’D’ colly page 28 to 38).
7. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by both said impugned
orders, dated 4/7/2009 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Ahmednagar and order dated 16.2.2010 passed by learned Additional
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, the petitioner has preferred present
petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and prayed for
the quashment of both the said impugned orders.
8. After hearing rival submissions advanced by both learned
respective counsel for the parties, the controversy revolves around the
aspect that “Whether the remedy is available to the petitioner under
the provisions of Right to Information Act, upon refusal of information
sought as of right ?” Learned APP pointed out that since the matter
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:13:49 :::
5
comes under Right to Information Act and since the applicant has
grievance regarding non supply of certain documents/information, he
has remedy available to approach to higher authority in the appeal and
he could have availed such remedy but inspite of taking recourse to the
said forum available to him, he filed complaint with the police station
and thereafter approached to the Court by way of Criminal
Miscellaneous Application No.213/2009 and therefore learned Chief
Judicial Magistrate Ahmednagar rightly rejected said application and
consequently learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar rightly
dismissed Criminal Revision application preferred against the said
order.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances, apparently, it
appears that, subject matter is within the purview of Right To
Information Act, 2005 and statutory remedy is available to the
petitioner thereunder upon refusal of the information sought as of
right and petitioner may avail such remedy, if he desires so, and
therefore, no interference is called for in the aforesaid impugned orders
dated 4.7.2009 and 16.2.2010, and accordingly, present petition
deserves to be dismissed.
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 16:13:49 :::
6
10. In the result, present petition stands dismissed. Rule
stands discharged accordingly.
( SHRIHARI P. DAVARE, J. )
aaa/574.10 ***
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 16:13:49 :::