All - Appeal On RTI

Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Appeal under
Section 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005.

Appeal No.2009/2028/02
Shri. Leslie Almeida
Casa Almeida “Flat 103,
1, St. Joseph Road, Off ST Paul Road,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer,
Divisional Dist. Registrar Cooperatives,
Grihanirman Bhavan (MHADA Bldg),
Ground Floor, Room No.69,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondent
Public Information Officer,
Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies,
H/W Ward Sahakar Bazar Bldg,
4th Floor, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
This appeal has been filed under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding case file Leslie Almeida V/s
Salselle Catholic Cooperative Society. He also wanted a copy of the circular to Salsette
Society by Dy Registrar in 2002; if the circular has been revoked a copy of the same, no
of societies in society formed within Salsette Society with registration no after
17.01.2002 up to date. Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer
and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has come in second appeal before the
commission. The appeal was heard on 05.03.2009. Appellants and respondent were
present. The appellant has stated that the PIO must furnish the information. The
respondent contended that they do not have the circular to Selsette Society and therefore
cannot furnish a copy of it. After considerable discussion it was agreed that the appellant
should inspect the relevant file and copies of the document selected by him should be
furnished within 30 days.
Order
The appeal is allowed.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
State Information Commissioner, Mumbai
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.03.2009
C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Appeal No.2009/2029/02
Casa Almeida “Flat 103,
1, St. Joseph Road, Off ST Paul Road,
V/s
Divisional Dist. Registrar Cooperatives,
Grihanirman Bhavan (MHADA Bldg),
Ground Floor, Room No.69,
Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies,
H/W Ward Sahakar Bazar Bldg,
4th Floor, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has asked for a copy of the visitors book for the month of July /
August 2007. Not satisfied with response from the Public Information Officer and the
First Appellate Authority the appellant has come in second appeal before the
commission. The appeal was heard on 05.03.2009. Appellant and respondent were
present. After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information must be furnished.
[
Order
The appeal is allowed. The information must be furnished within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1412/02
Shri. Pravin Kishor Jahir
50/F, Shantaram Nivas,
Sonapur Lane, Worli,
Koliwada, Room No.2,
Mumbai – 400 025. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Assist. Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation, “B” Ward Office,
121, Ranchandra Bhatta Marg,
Opp. J.J Hospital, Mumbai – 400 009. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Estate Officer,
Opp. J.J Hospital, Mumbai – 400 009.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding transfer of Room No.8, First
Floor, BIT Chawl No.6 Chinch bunder, Dr. Maheshwer Road, Mumbai in the name of
Vithal Posha Jahir. The appellant has asked for copies of documents on the basis of
which this transfer was given effect. Not satisfied with responses from the Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second
appeal before the commission. The appeal was heard on 02.03.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that the
room originally stood in the name of Shri Posha Hasha Jahir till 1956. His wife Shrimati.
Gangabai Posha Jahir died in 1978 but the room was transferred in the name of Vithal
Posha Jahir in 1975. It is for this reason that the appellant wanted copies of documents
which formed the basis of the transfer. The respondent has stated that they do have the
documents showing that the room was transferred in the name of Vithal Posha Jahir in
1975 but do not have documents which formed the basis of transfer.
After going though the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by
parties it is revealed that the MCGM is not in a position to furnish document. This is
very serious. No transfer can take place without supporting documents; otherwise the
inference will be that this has been done arbitrarily. I would therefore direct that the
respondent to make all efforts to locate the paper and communicate the findings to the
commission in the form of an affidavit. This should be done in 30 days.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2050/02
Shri. Jethalal Patel
Vithalwadi, Azad nagar,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 053. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer
Slum Rehabilitation Authority
5th Floor, Grihanirman Bhavan,
Public Information Officer cum Estate Officer,
Opp. J.J Hospital, Mumbai – 400 009.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certified copy of the Individual letters of consent or
consent in any forms and the certified copies of the individual 68 Agreements entered
into between M/s. K.S. Chamankar Enterprises as the developers and the slum dwellers at
the SRA project undertaken at lands viz the land bearing CTS no, 835 (pt.), of village
Ambivali at Azad Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First
Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the commission.
The appeal was heard on 12.03.2009. Appellant and respondents were present.
The appellant has contended that he had requested for copies of agreement
entered into by 68 persons and also copies of consent letters.
The respondent’s contention is that the information sought voluminous and
appellant should inspect the relevant documents and necessary copies will be provided to
him.
parties I have come to the conclusion the information needs to be provided. The
appellant cannot be formed to inspect documents Moreover the information sought is
precise and clear. It is true to that it is voluminous but we have to ensure that the
appellant is satisfied I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2051/02
Mr. Macchindra N. Karalkar
Hazarabhai House, Room No.5,
Irla Society Road,
Vile Parle (W), Mumbai – 400 056. … Appellant
V/s
Municipal Corporation, K/West Ward Office,
S.V. Road, Opp. Andheri Rail Station,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Medical Officer,

Municipal Corporation, Medical Officer of Health,
K/West Ward Office,
S.V. Road, Opp. Andheri Rail Station,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Hotel May a Bhuvan ‘spring’
shop No.1 Hazarabai house Irla Society road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai. The appellant has
sought certified copies of order received if any with regard to the above mentioned hotel.
The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 10.10.2008 informed him that he can
inspect the entire file take Xerox copies of selected documents. The First Appellate
Authority confirmed the PIO’s order.
The appeal was heard on 12.03.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the respondent
was present.
The appellant has contended that he was not satisfied with the reply given by the
Public Information officer and the First Appellate Authority did not give him hearing.
The respondent’s contention is that he has already been informed that he could
inspect the file and copies will be provided to him.

parties it is revealed that the appellant filed few other application relating to the hotel.
The request is also vague, copies of any order passed by courts relating to the hotel. One
needs to be precise and clear. In the light of this the PIO has passed the appropriate
order. I see no reason to intervene.
Order
The appeal is disposed off.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1908/02
Mr. Satyabhash Yashvant Salgaonkar,
J-42, Vrushali Shilp CHS,
Shimpoli, Chikuwadi, Borivali (W),
V/s
Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Board,
R Division, Mumbai Malhotra House,
6th Floor, Opp. GPO, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001. … Respondent

Dy. Registrar, Cooperative Board,
R Division, Mumbai Malhotra House,
6th Floor, Opp. GPO, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information whether Mr. Ravindra M. Sawant who
was not a member of the society can become president of the Administrative committee
taken on his complaint for not being allowed to take part in election and whether
elections were held as per rules.
The appeal was heard on 16.02.2009. Appellant was present but the respondent was
absent.
The appellant has contended that the president of the administrative committee
was not a member of the society but his father is a member. He wanted to know whether
he could become president on the strength of his father’s membership. No information
furnished regarding his complaints also.
Since the respondents chose to remain absent, I pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days failing
which action under section 20 will be initiated against him.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2054/02
Mr. Nitin Balkrushan Jadhav
9/52, Tejukaya Mention,
Dr. Ambedkar Rd, Lalbaug,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Art Director,
Art School Colony, Dr. D.N. Rd,

Art School Colony, Dr. D.N. Rd,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding his complaint against Shri
Dilip Borale working in the Directorate of Art.
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the required
information.
The respondent’s contention is that they have instituted an enquiry and an officer
has been appointed for the same. He however stated that enquiry is not yet over and
therefore no information possible at this stage.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the PIO will ensure that a copy of the report is
given to the appellant after the enquiry is over.
Order
The appeal is allowed.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2014/02
Mr. Ashokkumar Maruti Shinde
Avanti Ambar Build, Ground Floor,
Malbar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Superintendent Engineer,
Mumbai, 25, Marzban Road,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Executive Engineer,

Mumbai Development Division, 3rd Floor,
Mumbai – 400 023.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information on 8 points attached to his application
dated 12.05.2008. He has come in second appeal because neither the Public Information
Officer nor the First Appellate Authority furnished the information to him. The appeal
was heard on 04.03.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant’s main
contention was that he has not been given the information. The respondent had no other
argument except that the information was vast and voluminous. This cannot be a ground
for not furnishing the information. I therefore order as follows.
Order
The appeal is allowed. PIO to furnish the required information and inspection if
required by the appellant within 30 days failing which action under section 20 of the RTI
Act will be initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2057/02
Mr. Ashokkumar Maruti Shinde
Avanti Ambar Build, Ground Floor,
Malbar Hill, Mumbai – 400 006. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Superintendent Engineer,
Mumbai, 25, Marzban Road,

Mumbai Development Division, 3rd Floor,
Mumbai – 400 023.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information on 10 points relating to repairs, special
repairs, copies of bills, no of computers being used expense on jeep etc.
The appellant has contended that the information required by him is available in
the office but he is not being given the same.
The respondent’s contention is that it is voluminous and would take a lot of time.
parties I have come to the conclusion that even through the information is voluminous, it
needs to be furnished. If the information is available then it is obligatory on the part of
the Public Information Officer to furnish the same. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days, failing
which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated against the PIO.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2053/02
Mr. Malgaonkar Bhushan Pandurang,
122/302, Makuesh Apts,
Nadkarni Marg, Wadala (E),
V/s
Mumbai Public Work Department,
Executive Engineer Office,
Mumbai (S.B.) Mandal,
25, Margaon Road, Fort,
Public Information Officer cum Assit. Executive Engineer,

Mumbai Public Work Department,
Executive Engineer Office,
Mumbai (S.B.) Mandal,
25, Margaon Road, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to persons working in the office
of the Executive Engineer, asked for their names, designation, amount of salary, date of
appointment, years of service, caste and other details.
absent.
The appellant has contended that the Public Information Officer has not furnished
the required information within the stipulated time.
The respondent’s contention seems to be that the information sought is vast and
non specific.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information must be furnished. It is true

that the appellant has not specified the office but he does give the address. I presume that
he requires information relating to that office – Executive Engineer, 25, Marzban Road,
Mumbai. In any case this information is supposed to be ready in all offices as required
under section 4 of the Right to Information Act 2005. I therefore direct that the
Information relating to Executive Engineer 25, Marzban Road may be furnished to him.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2066/02
Mr. Dinesh Mahadev Tarkar
Bhivrabai Bosle Chalw No.3,
Room No.16, Bal Govidas Rd,
Mahim (W), Mumbai – 400 016. … Appellant
V/s
Dy. Collector, Dharavi Division Office,
Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat Sing Marg,

Dy. Collector, Dharavi Division Office,
Old Custom House, Shahid Bhagat Sing Marg,
Fort, Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the proposed SRA scheme on
FP No.36 of TPS III Mahim Division known as Jai Haniman CHS (Prot) at Mahim
(West), Mumbai.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given the required information.
He wanted information on the points raised in his notice dated 20.10.2009.
The respondent’s contention is that the notice has 18 points and it has been
addressed to M/s March constructions and Adarsh Developers. Some of the information
may be with SRA.
parties it is revealed that there is a proposal to develop the land through SRA. The
appellant has brought to the commissions notice that the area has been declared a slum in
2006. According to him this has not been done properly. After discussion with the

respondent it was decided that he should furnished a copy of the notification so that the
appellant can go through and take further steps if he so desired.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 16.03.2009.

Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Complaint under
Section 18 of RTI Act, 2005.
Complaint No.2008/210/02
Shri. C.V. Bhimashankaram
P.O. Box. 7228, Chembur,
V/s
Mumbai University, Mumbai – 400 032. … Respondent
GROUNDS
This complaint has been filed under section 18 of the Right to Information Act
2005. The complainant had filed an appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The
appellant had submitted his printed book for award of DSC/Dlitt. The degree, however,
was not awarded to him. He approached the Hon High Court and the Hon High Court
passed enter alia the following order.
The university is directed to forthwith refer the petitioner’s printed work for D.Sc
(maths) to the Board of Studies in Maths for assessment in accordance with the
provisions of relevant Ordinances including ordinances 781 to 785. The Board of Studies
will assess the printed work in the light of the relevant ordinances and make appropriate
recommendation to the appropriate authority. It is needless to say that the Board of
Studies shall follow the procedure-prescribed under the relevant Ordinances in evaluating
the printed work of the petitioner including the appointment of the referees and give
reasons for its conclusion. The report of the Board of Studies shall then be considered by
the appropriate authority and final decision may be taken as expeditiously as possible and
in any avent within a period of three months from today.
The University claims that action in accordance with the Hon high Court has been
taken and the complainant informed. The complainant has been insisting on having
copies of reports prepared by the Board of studies. The commission had ordered that the
information should be furnished. The complaint has approached the commission stating
that the information has not been furnished and hence this complaint.
The complaint was heard on 13.03.2009. The complainant and the opponent were
present. The complainant’s contention has been that information has not been furnished
to him. He had sought copies of evaluation reports as required by existing rules. He has
also quoted the Hon High Court order where in the Board of studies was expected to
follow the procedure prescribed under the relevant ordinances in evaluating the printed
work of the complainant including the appoint of referees and reasons for its conclusion.
The complainant has emphasized the point that the Board of studies was expected to give
reasons for its conclusion. He has sought copies of those reports / conclusions.
The opponent has stated that the complainant has been provided with available
information. He explained the procedure where by the Board of studies sends the printed
work to referees for evaluation after making up its mind. He also denied the existence of
117 reports which has been demanded by the complainant. He also submitted a copy the
referees reports and minutes of the joint meeting of Research and Recognition committee
for Board of studies in Education and Mathematics under the faculty of Arts, Science and
Commerce.
These documents or summaries were already available with the complainant. The
opponent also offered to facilitate inspection of relevant file to the complainant. The
complainant however was not keen to inspect documents. After a prolonged discussion it
was agreed that some documents have been furnished but the complainant was not
satisfied. Finally it was agreed that the complainant will be furnished copies of
individual reports of the Board of Studies which had recommended the names of Mr. J.

K. Verma Shri. Shridharan and Mr. M.G. Nadkarni for evaluating the complainant’s
work. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
The opponent will provide copies individual reports of members of the Board of
Studies within 30 days from this order. The appeal is disposed off.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 16.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1188/02
Mr. Prakash Govind Navathe,
204, Rajbaug, Bhalchandra Marg,
Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Chief Engineer
Municipal Corporation, “E” Division,
Shaikh Hafijuddin Marg, Byculla,
Public Information Officer cum Executive Engineer

Municipal Corporation, “E” Division,
Shaikh Hafijuddin Marg, Byculla,
Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to issuance of occupancy
certificate to Daluchand Niwas, Matunga.
The appellant has contended that he had sought information as to whether the
above building was issued occupancy certificate.
The respondent’s contention is that since the building has been given completion
certificate, the question of issuing occupancy certificate did not arise.
parties it is revealed that there have been many appeals by the same appellant on the same
issue. The RTI Act ensures furnishing of available information A copy of the non
existent occupancy certificate cannot be furnished. The issue as to ‘why not’ should be
taken up with Municipal Commissioner, MCGM. More over the Hon CIC has decided
three appeals 3523, 3524 and 3525 on the same issue. Nothing more needs to be done.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2070/02
Smt Philomena Mascarenhas
Flat No311, Siddhivinayak Nivas
Domnic Colony Rd No.3,
Orlem, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation, R/South Ward Office,
Mahatma Gandhi Cross Rd No.2,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Assit Commissioner

Municipal Corporation, P/North Ward Office Building,
Liberty Garden, Mamaledar Wadi Marg,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding his complaint against overflow
of sewage from drainage pipe of Christina Apartments, Domnic Colony Road No.3,
Orlem, Malad (W), Mumbai.
The appeal was heard on 17.03.2009. The appellant did not turn up.
The appellant has contended that despite his complaint, no action has been taken
to repair the drainage pipe resulting into unhygienic conditions in the area.
The respondent’s contention is that the building has not been given occupation
certificate and so it remains with the building proposal deptt. moreover, such repairs are
not carried out by MCGM but the owner of the building. They have issued notice under
section 257of the MMC Act.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by
parties it is revealed that the whole issue is stuck up in red tape. Since the building has
not been given occupancy certificate society – which takes care of such contingencies
might not have been formed. The property technically remains with the developers who
may not around. In view of the fact that notice under section 257 has already been given,
the MCGM should bring it its logical conclusion and inform the appellant.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 17.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2072/02
Mr. Jagannath H. Sharma
Chandrikabai H. Sharma,
Chawl Room No 1&2,
Khar Jawhar Nagar Saibaba Rd,
Khar (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Collector
Administrative Building, 10th Floor,
Govt. Colony, Bandra (E),

Administrative Building, 10th Floor,
Govt. Colony, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellants land was notified as Slum and Photopasses were issued to
occupants. He approached the Slum Tribunal which declared that his land should be
excluded from declaration of slum. He also received one letter dated 29.05.2007 saying
that the action of cancelling the Photopass was being taken. The appellant wants to know
what action has been taken.
absent.
The appellant has contended that although the Dy. Collector wrote on 29.05.2007
that action to cancel the Photopass was being taken, he has not been told what action was
taken. Since respondent was absent the commission could not verify whether some
action has been taken not.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant must be given the desired
information. I have also taken a serious note to respondent’s absence. I therefore pass
the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days, failing
which action under section of the RTI Act will be taken against the PIO.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 17.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2074/02
Mr. Sudhir Balvant Salvi
F/5 Gajanan Society,
90 Fit Road, D’soza Nagar,
Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 072. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Assist. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation, L Division,
Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070. … Respondent

Municipal Corporation, L Division,
Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to room no 2 and 14, Salvi
Chawl, Waltonwadi, Church Road, navapada, Kamani, Kurla (W), Mumbai. The
appellant has complained against unauthorized construction and wanted to know the
action taken on his complaint.
The appeal was heard on 17.03.2009. Appellant and respondent were present.
The appellant has contended that despite so many complaints he has not been
informed what action was taken against the unauthorized structure as pointed by him.
The respondent’s contention is that they have informed the appellant that no
permission was granted by MCGM.
parties it is revealed that the MCGM has not permitted the structure. The issue is not
that. The appellant says that since the MCGM has not permitted, they are unauthorized
and action must be taken against them. I agree with the appellant. It is not enough to ay
that MCGM has not permitted. The PIO must take action and inform the appellant.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 45
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 17.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2076/02
Mr. Laxman Ganu Gaikwad
A/34/267, Saiba CHS, Ltd,
MIG Colony, Sidharthnagar, Road No.2,
Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400 104. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Registrar,
Cooperative Board, Housing & Area Development Board,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Secretary,

New Sidharthnagar, Road no.2,
MIG Colony, Sidharthnagar, Road No.2,
Goregoan (W), Mumbai – 400 104.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Saiba cooperative housing
Society Ltd, Sidharthnagar, Road No.2, Goregaon, Mumbai. The appellant has asked
copies of all correspondence, agreement, letters transaction held and during the last two
years.
The appellant has contended that he has been denied information. He has cited
Dy. Registrar letter dated 25.07.2008 where society has been asked to furnish information
as required under section 32 of the MCS Act, 1960.
The respondent’s contention is that they are not covered under the Right to
Information Act, 2005.
After going though the case papers and considering the arguments I have come to
the conclusion that society’s contention that they are not covered under the Right to
Information Act is correct. Societies have not been designated as Public Information
Officer. The Dy. Registrar Cooperative Societies has also not been designated as the
First Appellate Authority to hear the first appeal against societies. The Dy. Registrar has
done the correct thing by asking the society to furnish information as required under
section 32 of the MCS Act.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 17.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2077/02
Mr. Menino, Francisco, Gregory, Fernandes
101-B, Florence Mithagar Road,
Kanderpada, Dahisar (W), Mumbai – 400 068. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Chief Engineer,
M.B.R. & R. Board,
Shindewadi, 8, S.A. Palav Marg,
Sonawala Bldg, Dadar (E),

Office of the Executive Engineer RU-I,
M.B.R. & R. Board,
Shindewadi, 8, S.A. Palav Marg,
Sonawala Bldg, Dadar (E),
Mumbai – 400 014.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Hira Govindajee Apt. 342-
342 D, Sir J.J. Road, Byculla, Mumbai. The appellant has sought information since 1978
and copies of full file, all communication, copies of notings and all papers pertaining to
the building.
The appellant has contended that the Public Information Officer has not furnished
reply within 30 days, he did not mention how the appellant was asked to pay Rs.9000/-
and did not give inspection.
The respondent’s contention is that the information sought is vast. It is also not
specific. They have volunteered to facilitate inspection so that appellant can identify
documents and secure copies of selected documents.

parties it is clear that the information sought is not specific. It is also voluminous. This
however does not mean that the PIO should not reveal to the appellant how he has been
asked to deposit Rs.9000/-. The appellant should also be allowed to inspect documents.
Copies of selected documents should be furnished.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Appellant to inspect documents and select the ones whose
copy he requires. The PIO will furnish copies of selected documents within 15 days on
payment.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 17.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2078/02
Mr. Chandrakant Arjun Salvi,
601, Chaitanya CHS, Behind Samaj Mandir,
Sion Koliwada (E), Mumbai – 400 022. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Director,
Desk No.19, Ground Floor,
Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board,
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Director,

Desk No.415, 3rd Floor,
Desk No.19, Ground Floor,
Mumbai Housing & Area Development Board,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to his application for payment of
interest on advance payment made by him for allotment of a flat. The appellant has made
some advance payment but was not handed over the flat in time.
The appellant has contended that existing rules permitted payment interest @ 10%
if on some account flat was not handed over in time.
The respondent’s contention is that the rule has since been changed a file has been
moved in this regard and final decision has to be taken by the Chief Officer. They
handed over a copy of the report submitted to the commission indicating the latest
position.
parties it is seen that the file is being processed. This information has been furnished to

the appellant. MHADA should expedite the file and inform the appellant as soon as the
decision is taken.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished the decision is as soon taken
by MHADA.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2081/02
Mr. Sameer Sabharwal
2, Grotto Building,
33rd Road & 9th Road Crossing,
Old Khar, Mumbai – 400 052. … Appellant
V/s
Municipal Corporation, Greater Mumbai,
K/West Ward Office Bldg,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum

1. Assist Engineer (B & F)
2. Sr. Inspector (Licence)
3. Medical Officer (Health)
K/West Ward Office Bldg,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant main contention is that his first appeal has not been heard and his
letter has not been relied.
The appellant has contended that his appeal has not been heard.
The respondent’s contention is that the first appeal was decided on 08.10.2008.
The appellant however pointed out that the order dated 08.10.2008 is in the context of
another appeal. The appeal dated 08.10.2009 could not have been decide the same day.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant must be heard by the First
Appellate Authority.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The First Appellate Authority to hear the appeal and pass
appropriate order within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2083/02
Mr. Dattaram Krushana Pedamkar & other
Mariamma Nagar, Room No.33 M,
223, Behind Neharu Center, Dr.A.B.Rd,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Secretary
SRA, 5th Floor, Grihanirman Bhavan,
Public Information Officer cum Engineer Desk / Assist Registrar

Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought the information relating to Mariamma Nagar, SRA
Cooperative Housing Society, Dr. A. B. Road, Worli. He wanted copies of L01,
agreement between the developer and the society and related documents.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given copies of required
documents.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant has sought information on the
same issue time and again. Appellant also admitted that he has received some
information.
parties it was agreed by parties that the PIO should furnish to him a copy of the initial
proposal submitted by the society to SRA through their architect and developer.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days and
free of cost.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2082/02
Mr. Sameer Sabharwal
2, Grotto Building,
33rd Road & 9th Road Crossing,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Engineer B. P. (W.S.),
Office of the Chief Engineer,
Building Proposal (W.S.)
1st Floor, R.K. Patkar Marg,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. … Respondent
Building Proposal Deptt. (W.S.H.W.)
Office of the Chief Engineer,
Building Proposal (W.S.)
1st Floor, R.K. Patkar Marg,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought the following information: -
1. Copies of the / Rules under the BMC Act & the D.C Rules, which permits your
office to sanction developments in a building without approval of the tenants.
2. Further you have sanctioned the change of a residential flat No. 1 in the building
into four shops. Please provide me with copies of the documents, which confirm
that, the shops are approved for the user of convenience shops only.
3. In case the shops are not approved for convenience user, please provide me with
copies of the Rules, which allowed you to sanction the shops for user other than
convenience shops as the building is located in a R-1 Zone as under the D.C
Rules.
4. Further you have also granted C.C. & O.C. to the shops in spite of them being
larger that the sizes as permitted in the D.C. rules. Please provide me with the

copies of the Rules which permit you to sanction shops of sizes larger that, what
are permissible by law & as is mentioned in the D.C. Rules.
5. Please also provide me with copies of the Rules, which permit you to allow
development of 4 shops in the same building in an R-1 Zone,
6. As the document pertains to me liberty & right, therefore it should be provided
within 48 hours of its request as laid out in the RTI Act & Rules. I am ready to
pay the necessary charges as applicable under the Act.
The appellant has contended that he has asked for information within 48 hours but
the Public Information Officer did not furnish. The information furnished after the First
Appellate Authority was also incomplete and incorrect.
The respondent’s contention is that the First Appellate Authority’s order directing
the PIO to furnish information has been complied and copies of the approval report
occupation compliance / Approval report and plan have been given. The appellant was
also offered inspection of documents if he so desired.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information has been furnished. It
is true that answers to his specific queries have not been given. This not expected. The
RTI Act ensures furnishing of available information. The Information furnished can be
used to correct irregularities if any by approaching the competent authority. In the light
of the above, I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1537/02
Prof. Patankar Nisarali Muhammad
2/204 Aghadi Nagar, Andheri (E),
Mumbai 400 093. … Appellant
V/s
Khairul Islam Higher Education Society’s,
Maharashtra College of Arts, Science and Commerce. 2,
Prince Court, 53/c, Clare Rd, Byculla, Mumbai 400 008. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Principal
Prince Court, 53/c, Clare Rd, Byculla, Mumbai 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought the following information: -
1. Inquiry Officer letter dated 01.08.2007 to Disciplinary Authority, marked as
Annexure IOE-IV appended to annexure V of Inquiry Report of DI of the
applicant, in connection with additional documents requirement of the applicant
for writing his defense statement.
2. The reply of Disciplinary Authority dated 04.08.2007, appended to Inquiry Report
of the applicant’s DI, marked as annexure PE XXXVIII and appended to
annexure IV by IO.
The appellant has contended he has not been furnished the information required
by him.
The respondent’s contention is that these information have been furnished to him
during the Departmental Enquiry and therefore they need not be furnished under RTI Act.

parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. The RTI Act
and Departmental Enquiry are separate. The argument that because he has been
furnished copies under the DE proceedings and therefore cannot be given under RTI is
not tenable. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1538/02
V/s
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought a certified copy of the University rule which requires the
cross examination to be recorded in narration form. The appellant during the hearing of
his case had requested for permission to cross examine witnesses but was refused on the
ground that cross examination can be only in the narration form.
The appellant has contended that he was not allowed to cross examine witnesses
on the ground that it was allowed in the narration form. He therefore asked for a copy of
the relevant University rule.
The respondent’s contention is that they have noting to do with allowing or not
allowing of the cross examination. The appellant should have asked the authority which
did not allow to cross examine.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the respondent’s contention is correct. The
appellant has also not specified the rule. Since the respondent is not a party to allow or
disallow, the question of they furnishing a copy of the relevant rule did not arise. I
therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2088/02
V/s
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information. He was furnished the information
but the same was certified by the Vice principal but had the rubber stamp of principal and
did not have the date. He has sought corrected copy.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant’s contention is correct. The
attested documents should have been stamped properly. I therefore pass the following
order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The duly certified copy to be furnished within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 18.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2061/02
Shri. Shivkumar Ramchandra Sharma
B-506, Valencia (5th Floor),
Raheja Exotica, Ratil Wadi, Madh-Marve Rd,
Madh Island, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 061. … Appellant
V/s
Directorate of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, 3 Mahapalika Marg,
Opp. Metro Adlabs, Mumbai – 400 001. … Respondent
Directorate of Technical Education,
Maharashtra State, 3 Mahapalika Marg,
Opp. Metro Adlabs, Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information relating to Wigan and Leigh College
of Management, Mumbai. The appellant has sough information on 12 points – what is
WLS College in India and what does WLC stand for, whether it is the full form for
Wigan & Leigh or some other, its affiliation, registration action taken against them etc.
was present.
The appellant has asked many questions seeking information about the College.
The respondent has made written submission. It has been stated by them that the matter
was enquired into by the Regional office of the Directorate and a copy of the report has
already been sent to the appellant. The respondent has explained the reasons for delay.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2062/02
Shri. Vishavnath Keshav Vichare
203-A, Vaishali CHS,
Near Teacher’s Colony, Aliavar Jung Marg,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum District Dy. Registrar,
Cooperative Board (3), MHADA Building, Desk No.69,
Ground Floor, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Assit. Registrar,
Cooperative Board (H East) Division,
Sahkar Bazar, 4th Floor, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information relating to his application requesting
action against Vaishali cooperative Housing Society for not furnishing M20 Bonds in
time.
The appellant has contended that the Managing Committee was constituted on
25.05.2008 and members are expected to furnish bonds within 15 days. The same has not
been done and he made a complaint to take action against the society. The action taken
report has not been received by him.
The respondent has made his submission in writing. It is revealed that the First
Appellate Authority and Dy. Registrar by his order dated 08.12.2008 had ordered that the
required information should be furnished. He has also remarked that the deptt has not
replied to the appellant.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2113/02
Shri. Laxman Tanaka Devre
President, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Board,
85, Navi Peth, Jalgaon 425 001. … Appellant
V/s
Maharashtra State, State Road Transport Corporation,
Maharashtra Transport Board, Dr. Anandrao Nayar Marg,
Public Information Officer cum Managing Director,
Maharashtra State, State Road Transport Corporation,
Maharashtra Transport Board, Dr. Anandrao Nayar Marg,
Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information relating to display of Photographs of
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule and Savitribai Phule in Divisional Officers of Maharashtra State
Road Transport Corporation in accordance with the Govt. instruction issued in this
connection.
information despite repeated requested.
The respondent’s contention is that since information has to be collected from
their 32 Divisional Officers, it is taking time. It stated by them that some information has
already been received and the rest is expected.

Govt. order in this regard is very clear and the appellant is entitled to know whether it is
being implemented or not.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 23.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1888/02
Shri. Abdul Gafur Hunshal
Hotel President, Maharashtra Nagar,
V/s
SRA, Grihanirman Bhavan, 5th Floor,
SRA, Grihanirman Bhavan, 5th Floor,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought information regarding the hearing held on 28.02.2008
before the Secretary, Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
was present.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information should be furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 25.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1971/02
Shri. Nicholas Almeida,
Almeida House,
Church Pakhadi Rd, No.2,
Sahar Village, Vile Parle (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Assitt. Commissioner,
Mumbai Municipal Corporation,
H-West Ward, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Assitt. Engineer,
H-West Ward, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information on the following points: -
A) Whether, Mr.Zakiuddin Golwalla residing on the First Floor of Rahim Manzil,
135/A Bazaar Rd, Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 050 has constructed any toilet
inside his residence and if so whether Mr.Zakiuddin Golwalla has obtained BMC
permission for constructing the same.
B) Whether Mr.Zakiuddin Golwalla has modified or extended or carried out any
unauthorized construction below the out house sharing toilet block which is
adjoining his residence, if so, has Mr.Zakiuddin Golwalla obtained permission
from the BMC for carrying out such work. Whether the BMC has taken any legal
action against the said unauthorized construction and what is the present status.
C) How many complaints has been filed against Mr.Zakiuddin Golwalla for illegal
construction at Rahim Manzil located at 135/A Bazaar Rd, Bandra (W),
Mumbai – 400 050 during the past and what is the status of action taken thereon
by BMC.
D)

was present.
The appellant has contended that the Public Information Officer as well as the
First Appellate Authority have failed to furnish the required information. There is noting
on record to show whether they have passed any order.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 25.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1951/02
Shri. Sumeer Sabharwal,
2, Grotto Building,
33rd Rd & 9th Rd Crossing,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Assitt. Commissioner,
K-West Ward, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Assitt. Engineer,
K-West Ward, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
E) This appeal has been filed under section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act
2005. The appellant had sought the following information: -
F) 1. Inspection of the survey report of the Asst.Eng.(B&F) of the Fun Republic
Cinema Building.
2. If no survey has been done, then please intimate why the officer had not acted as
per the order of the AMC.
3. In the Fun Republic Cinema Building, there are several shops constructed in the
open area, wherein the business of food selling & various other commercial
businesses are being operated. I call upon to please verify if these shops are
sanctioned for operation in the open area by the BMC.
4. Please also provide me confirmation that, all the users of the premises in the above
building is in accordance to the law & the sanctioned plan.

3.
The appellant has contended he has been given incomplete information. He has
also stated that the First Appellate Authority’s order dated 13.10.2008 has not been
complied. The respondent’s contention is that he has furnished the information available
with him.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information must be furnished. The First
Appellate Authority was satisfied that the information furnished was not according to the
appellant’s requirement. He therefore ordered that the PIO should inspect the entire
building and initiate action wherever required. The order needs to be complied. I
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by PIO within 30 days. The
PIO to show cause why action under section 20 of the RTI Act should not be initiated
against him. His reply to reach the commission within 3 weeks.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1939/02
Dr. Mukul H. Thakore
Flat No.14, Geetika CHS Ltd,
85, S.V. rd, Santacruz (W),
V/s
DDR Cooperative Societies,
MHADA, Grihanirman Bhavan,
Administrator Geetika CHS Ltd,
H/W Ward, 4th Floor, Sahakar Bazar,
Opp. Bandra Railway Station, Bandra (W),
Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information: -
1.Certified copies of documents & papers of your action against past committee
and defaulters and details of Bank Deposit and Accounts and your working report
as Administrator Geetika Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, 85, S.V. Rd,
Santacruz (W), Mumbai 400 054.
2. How many meetings have been called and society records prepared by you as
Administrator of Geetika Cooperative Housing Society Ltd, 85 S.V. rd, Santacruz
(W), Mumbai – 400 054.
3. What steps have been taken against M/s Mukesh Construction who has misused
the society repair funds and not completed work.
The PIO informed the appellant that the information should be collected from the
Administrator. There is nothing on record to show whether the First Appellate Authority
passed any order.

The appellant has contended that the information sought by him is in public
interest but has not been furnished to him.
The respondent’s contention is that the information pertains to the society’s
working and is available at society’s level.
parties it is revealed that the information sought by the appellant may be public
importance but the PIO is not holding the same. The information relating to the Bank
deposit and accounts normally cannot be accessed by the PIO. Similarly no of meetings
held and action against the agency which had undertaken repair work and related matters
are only with the society. Any specific complaint can be looked into under Maharashtra
Cooperative Society Act 1960. The society’s internal working and the information not
held by the PIO are beyond RTI Act. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1171/02
Mr.Joan Joyce Fernandes
Madhuswari Co-Op. Housing Society No.2
Plot No.5-6, Carter Rd No.2,
Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dist. Dy Registrar,
Cooperative Board (3),
Mumbai Grihanirman Bhavan,
Ground Floor, Desk No.69,
Public Information Officer cum Dy Registrar
Cooperative Board (3),
H/West Division, Sahakar Bazaar, 4th Floor,
Public Information Officer cum Administrator,

Madhuswari Co-Op. Housing Society No.2,
Plot No.5-6, Carter Rd No.2,
Khar (W), Mumbai – 400 052.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 24.10.2007 had sought the information
relating to Mudheshwari Housing Society Ltd, Khar (W), Mumbai. The information was
sought regarding documents in possession of society and also copy of the Bond furnished
by members.
The Public Information Officer by his letter 15.11.2009 informed the appellant
that the information sought was available at the society level and the society was being
directed to furnish the information. He also informed the appellant that Bond has not
been submitted to the PIO’s office.
The appeal was heard on 04.01.2008 disposed off the appellant’s appeal under the RTI

Act but directed under section 79 of the Cooperative Society Act 1960 to furnish
information to the appellant. The appellant was not satisfied. Hence this appeal.
The appeal was heard on 05.02.2009. Appellant was present but the respondent
was absent.
The appellant has contended that the First Appellate Authority as well as the
PIO’s directions have not been complied. The appellant has stated that the PIO should
obtain information from the society and furnish to the appellant.
The respondent was absent so facts could not be verified.
parties I have come to the conclusion that he First Appellate Authority has taken the right
decision. It is not expected to collect the information and furnish to the appellant
specially in the present case where the range and volume of the information sought is
very wide and big. The appellant has to pursue her case under the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act 1960. I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/2120/02
Smt. Anandi Ramchandran
Bldg 29/A-22 Takshila (2nd Floor)
Mahakali Caves Rd, Andheri (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dist. Dy Registrar,
Room No.69, Mumbai Grihanirman Bhavan,
Office of the Dy Registrar,
Malhotra House, 6th Floor, Opp. GPO,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the working of Takshila CHS,
Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai. The information related to the
appointment of the administrator, holding of AGM, collection of charges and Levies and
her expulsion from the society.
The appellant has contended that she has not been furnished the required
information.
The respondent’s contention is that the information has been sought in the
question answer form where as the RTI Act provides for furnishing of information
available in material form.
parties it is revealed that although the information has been sought in question answer
form the PIO has furnished the required information. The order passed by the First
Appellate Authority does not need any intervention and the same is confirmed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009
Appeal No.2009/2131/02
Mr. Hariba Mahadev Chopde,
Savitribai Malin Chawl, Parikh Khadi Colony,
LBS Marg, Behind Sudhakar Store,
Room No.3, Kurla (W), Mumbai – 400 070. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy Registrar,
Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding Savitribai Malin Chawl where
the holder of Photopass no 84391 has divided his hut into two to claim double benefit.
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the information
despite repeated requests.
The respondent’s contention is that the information has been furnished by their
letter dated 03.07.2008and 30.09.2008. The information officer explained that the area
was surveyed by the office of the Dy. Collector encroachment Chambur and papers were
sent to their office for further processing. No Photopass has been issued. He also
clarified to the appellant holder of the photopasses alone will be entitled to get a tenement
irrespective of the no of people staying in the hut.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished. The PIO

however is advised is carry out the survey & issue Photopasses strictly in accordance
with the existing rules. The case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1935/02
Mr. Krushna Babal Kavthankar
A/501, Shubhash CHS,
Sant Gora Kumbhar Marg,
Dharavi, Mumbai – 400 017. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Assit Commissioner,
Municipal Corporation,
G/North Division Office,
Harishchandra Yelave Marg,
Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Senior Colony Officer,
G/North Division Office,
Harishchandra Yelave Marg,
Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to two letters dated 07.06.2008
and 04.04.2008 and also about the unauthorized and incomplete construction by the
developer in Subhash Nagar Cooperative housing Society, Dharavi CTS No 40 (Part
Mumbai) undertaken under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme.
required by him. The first appeal was heard 11.09.2008 but no order has been passed.
The respondent’s contention is that he does not have the required information and
this could be available with the ward officer.

The ward officer to ensure that the appellant gets the information he requires. Failure to
comply with this order will lead to action under section 20 of the RTI Act 2005.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/2134/02
Mr. Ravindra Vinayak Savant & Other
H 4/63, Gorai Rd, Shri Ganesh Krupa CHS,
Horai Rd, Borivali (W), Mumbai – 400 091. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy Registrar,
Cooperative Housing Board (MHADA),
Cooperative Housing Board (MHADA),
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to taking over of the
administration of Shri Ganesh Krupa Cooperative Housing Society, Gorai Road, Borivali,
Mumbai by the Administrator and related issues.
absent.
The appellant in his written submission has contended that he had sought a
certified copy of taken over report and list of documents. He has alleged that the
information furnished is faulty. It appears from the record that the PIO by his letter dated
09.09.2008 informed the appellant that charge was taken over on 13.08.2008 but the list
of documents was not enclosed and the same has been called from the administrator.

parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been partly furnished. The
PIO to get the list of documents which the administrator has taken over and furnish to the
appellant.
Order
which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1972/02
Mr. Narinder Singh Chadha
Bungalow 6, Asha Colony,
Juhu Tara Rd, Santacruz (W),
V/s
H/West Ward, St. Martin Rd,
Public Information Officer cum Assit Engineer,
H/West Ward, St. Martin Rd,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to unauthorized coverage of
permanent nature in the open space on the ground floor admeasuring over 2000 sq.ft on
eastern side of Hotel Evergreen. The appellant wanted to be informed what action was
taken on his complaint in this regard.
was present.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given any information. The
record also does not show any order / information given I therefore pass the following
order.
Order
Information to be furnished by PIO within 15 days. PIO to show cause for his
absence and also for not furnishing the information. If his explanation does not reach
within 15 days, he will be proceeded with under section 20 of the RTI Act.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1970/02
Mr. Sanjay Vishnu Tikam
B/602, Sanskar Ganesh Peth Lane,
Dadar (W), Mumbai – 400 028. … Appellant
V/s
Slum Rehabilitation Authority,
Public Information Officer cum Assit Engineer
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the redevelopment scheme on
the plot bearing no 96A, 96 B, 97 TPS II Mahim Division, Padrewadi Ltd, Dilip Gupte
Road, Mahim. The appellant had asked for copies of annexure II, approved plan of
rehah, Lol and commencement certificate. He also wanted copies of documents
submitted by the developer M/s Gharandaj Builders.
was present.
The appellant in appeal has contended that he has not been given the required
information.
The responder’s contention is that the appellant was informed by his letter dated
23.06.2008 to deposit Rs.720/- and collect the information. The appellant however says
that he received the letter on 04.07.2008 and should be given information free of cost.
parties I have come to the conclusion the PIO has offered to furnish the information

within 30 days. The appellant received the letter a little late for which PIO cannot be
held responsible. The appellant should deposit the amount intimated by the PIO and
collect the information.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009

Appeal No.2009/1830/02
Mr.Ganesh Kishanrao Kopale
4/66, Geetanjali
Samtanagar, Kandivali (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Professor
Mumbai University,
Room No.114, Fort Campus,
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Registrar
Mumbai University,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding qualification and salary of
lectures in Economic Subjects in Bombay University Colleges. Similarly he had sought
information regarding qualification, experience and salary package of Readers and
Professors. He also requested for equivalent for lectures, readers & Professor in Marathi.
was present.
The appellant has contended that he has been given incomplete information. He
also specifically pointed out that information on points 5 (b) (c) (d) was not given. He
seems to be particularly concerned about information on point no 5 (d).
The responder’s contention is that they have furnished all the information
available with them.

parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been partially furnished.
Information on point (d) will have to be furnished. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Information on point no 5(d) to be furnished by
PIO within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2153/02
Irla Society Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Assit Commissioner
R/South Ward Office, M.G. Rd,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Medical Officer of Health

R/South Ward Office, M.G. Rd,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Hotel Dlicacy pure
Vegetarian, Abhilasha Apartment, S.V. Road, Kandivali (W), Mumbai. The information
related to construction in the compulsory open space, failure on the part of the Medical
Officer R South to take action, certified copies of show cause notice Licences, Medical
report of staff etc.
The appellant at the outset stated that he has received all the information and the
case may be closed. The request is granted.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2150/02
Mr. Ram Shivram Gupte
107/852, M.H.B. Colony,
Gaikwad Nagar Gate No.2,
Malawani, Malad (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Joint Chief Officer
Housing & Area Development Board,
Public Information Officer cum Assit Land Manager,

Borivali Taluka, Grihanirman Bhavan Room No.407,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Survey no 44 CTS no, Mauje
Pahadi Goregaon Mumbai. The land has been shown under serveration and the appellant
wants to know how it was resevered etc.
absent.
information since the respondent was absent facts could not be verified. I therefore pass
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished in 15 days. the PIO to show
cause why action should be taken against him for not furnishing the required information.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1253/02
Mr.Pandurang Genuba Sanas
279-B-8, Sambhaji Nagar, CHS Ltd,
N.M Joshi Marg, Mumbai – 400 013. … Appellant
V/s
Maharashtra Public Service Commission
Bank of India Building,
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the Police Sub Inspectors
Limited Departmental competitive Examination 1998 and the show cause notice to him.
was present.
The appellant in his appeal has contended that he has been denied the information
he has sought. The responder’s contention is that since the enquiry is still going on, the
information has been denied.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been rightly denied. The
first Appellate Authority in his detailed order dated 02.04.2008 given reasons for denial
of the information. After careful consideration I come to the conclusion that his order
should be confirmed. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
Appeal is dismissed. The First Appellate Authority’s order is confirmed.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2168/02
Shri. Dinesh Pandurang Shurkar,
Shurkar Electronic,
A-7/13/N.L-2,
Sector 1, Nerul,
Navi Mumbai – 400 706. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy Chief Engineer,
Electric Supply & Transport Corporation,
Likmanya Tilaka Marg,
Dadar, Mumbai – 400 014. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Division Engineer,
Electric Supply & Transport Corporation
BEST Bhavan, BEST Marg, Post Box No.192,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to supply of Electric Meter to the
stores of BEST.
was present.
After going through the papers I have not been able to understand the precise
information sought by the appellant. The respondent however has explained that the
information relates to supply of meter to the stores of BEST and the same has been
handed over to him. They also point out there was no first appeal filed by the appellant.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished. I therefore
pass the following order.
Order
Appeal is disposed off.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1979/02
Mr. Vijay Hari Bhosle
1701, Rambhakunj Methalnagar,
Ambernath (W) 421 505. … Appellant
V/s
Mumbai Housing Board & Division Board,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Kalanagar,
Public Information Officer cum Estate Manager,
Mumbai Housing Board & Division Board,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Kalanagar,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to room no B7 to 12 at Shivadi,
Wadala Dyaneshwer Nagar, Mumbai. The appellant has sought information regarding
the original allottees and subsequent transfers.
The appellant has contended that the he has been given wrong information.
The respondent’s contention is that copies of available information have been
furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that since the appellant is contesting the
authenticity of the information furnished, there is no other way but to offer him
inspection of the record which has formed the basis of the information furnished I
Order
The appeal is allowed. Appellant to be allowed to inspect documents and copies
of selected ones to be furnished within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1252/02
Mr.Santosh Vasant Bhalerao
1/18, Police Colony, Karter Rd,
V/s
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
was present.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1251/02
Mr.Ganesh Nathu Chaudhari
5/11, Snehbandhan Park,
New Police Colony, Sharnapur,
Nasik, Dist. Nasik. … Appellant
V/s
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
was present.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2104/02
Mr.Dilipkumar Gaurishankar Agrawal
Bodwad, Main Rd,
Dist. Jalgaon. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy Secretary
Rural Development Department
Public Information Officer cum under Secretary
Rural Development Department,
Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to District Road No 16-A- who is
the controller’s authority, maps and whether it open for public transport etc.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 23.03.2009. Appellant and respondent were present.
It appears from case papers that the PIO by his letter dated 07.03.2007 has
informed the appellant that the road belongs to Zilla Parishad and the right person to
furnish information will be Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. He was also
informed that his application was being sent to him and the appellant should get in touch
with the CEO Zilla Parishad, Jalgaon. The appellant preferred the first appeal but records
do not show whether the First Appellate Authority passed any order.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information furnished by the PIO is correct.
I would however like to record that the CEO, Zilla Parishad, must take up his case and
furnish the required information since the appellant’s application is already with him. A
copy of this order may be sent to him.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2105/02
Mr.Dilipkumar Gaurishankar Agrawal
Bodwad, Main Rd,
Dist. Jalgaon. … Appellant
V/s
General Administrative Department, Desk-5,
1st Floor, New Administrative Building,
Mantranaya, Mumbai – 400 032. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum under Secretary
General Administrative Department, Desk-5,
1st Floor, New Administrative Building,
Mantranaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the working of the State
Information Commission and General Administrative Department, Govt. of Maharashtra.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 23.03.2009. Appellant and respondent were present.
I have gone through the case papers and come to the conclusion that the appellant
has raised genuine concerns and expectation from the commission. The PIO, Information
Commission by his letter dated 19.12.2006 has explained to him the working and
constraints under which the commission s working. He has also pointed out the
deficiencies in his letter which caused difficulty in responding to him. I am satisfied with
the reply given by the PIO. The case is therefore closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1973/02
Mr.Avinash Madhukar Prabhu
46/D/6, old Chikhalwadi,
T.J.Rd, Mumbai – 400 007. … Appellant
V/s
MBRRB, MHADA, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014. … Respondent
MBRRB, MHADA, Dadar, Mumbai 400 014.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to NOC issued for
redevelopment of property at CS No.309 Tardeo Division known as old Chikhalwadi,
Mumbai.
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished information either by
the Chief Officer or by the First Appellate Authority. He has been offered inspection of
documents but he is not interested in it.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant has been offered the opportunity
of inspecting the relevant file and copies of the selected document can be made available.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information must be furnished. It is the
appellant choice. Moreover if the information sought is clear and straight forward the
question of inspection should not arise. In this case, the information sought is not vague
and therefore must be provided.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1250/02
Mr.Nivruti Gangaram Pawar,
1/C/704, Dev Ratn Nagar, Swadeshi Mill,
Chunabhatti (E), Mumbai – 400 022. … Appellant
V/s
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Public Information Officer Dy Secretary
Mahatma Gadhi Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has asked information relating to data on hard disc & computer
floppies recovered from the accused Shri Farooq Kadge and others and confirmed by the
Forensic Laboratory, original answer books and other details. The public Information
Officer has denied information on the ground that the Anti corruption Bureau is
investigating investigation the case. The appellant is not satisfied and hence this appeal.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 02.03.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The
respondent was present. The respondent has made his submission in writing. It has been
stated that the ACB is investigating the case and it would not be desirable to furnish the
information. I have also examined the case papers. The First Appellate Authority has
passed elaborate and detailed order. Since the matter is under investigation, the First
Appellate Authority is correct in denying the information. I confirm his order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1852/02
V/s
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to KHAIRUL ISLAM
HIGHER EDUCATION SOCIETY, Mumbai.
1. All the files containing notices of meetings.
2. The agendas of the meetings.
3. Attendances of the meetings.
4. The minutes of the meetings.
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the information he
requires.
The respondent’s contention is that the trust is not covered under the RTI Act.
parties I have come to the conclusion that since the trust does not receive govt. financial
support, it is not covered under the RTI Act. I therefore close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1799/02
Shri. Kailas Dangal Patil,
Flat No.7, Kalpana Nagar,
Near Police Station,
Collage Rd, Nashik. … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Additional Police Superintendent
Anti Corporation Burro,
Maharashtra State, Mumbai. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Dy Police Superintendent
Anti Corporation Burro, Maharashtra State,
Madhu Industrial Estate, 1st Floor,
Pandurang Budhakar Marg,
Parel Mumbai – 400 013.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the complaint made against
him by Shri Shelke, Police Inspector, Dindori Police Station (Nashik Rural) and the
complaint made by the appellant against Shri B.G. Shekhar, Deputy Commissioner/Supdt
of Police Nashik Range.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given the information which he
has sought.
The respondent’s contention is that as a result of investigation into the complaint
and counter complaint a Department Enquiry has been ordered on 16.08.2008. The
required information cannot be furnished under section 8(1) of the RTI Act 2005.
Act is very clear that if the disclosure is likely to impede the process investigation, the

information need not be furnished. Noting contrary to the order of the First Appellate
Authority has bee proved. I therefore confirm the order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1968/02
Shri.Rajesh Pandurang Thakur
Building No.60/1971,
Neharu Nagar, Kurla (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Registrar
Cooperative Board,
Public Information Officer cum Dy Police Superintendent
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Nehru Nagar Ratnadeep
Cooperative Housing Society. The appellant has made a complaint and he has sought
information regarding action taken on it.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given the information either by
the Public Information Officer by the First Appellate Authority. The record also shows
that he was called for hearing on 11.11.2008 but no order was passed.
In view of this I pass the following order.
Order
Information as sought in his application dated 19.09.2008 must be furnished
within 15 days failing action under section 20 of the RTI will be initiate against the PIO.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1539/02
V/s
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the Governing Body Meeting
of the Maharashtra College held on 27.02.2008. The appellant has sought attested copies
of (1) The notice of the meeting & its circulation attendance (2) Agenda of the meeting
(3) Attendance at the meeting minutes of the meeting.
absent.
The appellant has contended that these documents are required because the
decision to dismiss him from service was taken in this meeting. He has not been given
the information so far. Since the respondent was not present it could not be verified. I
Order
The information sought by the appellant to be furnished within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1540/02
V/s
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought an attested copy of the Phd Degree certificate of the
Principal Dr. Shakeel Hurzuk of Maharashtra College Mumbai.
absent.
The appellant has contended that the required information has not been furnished
since the respondent was absent, it could not be verified. I therefore pass the following
order.
Order
The required information should be furnished within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1959/02
Mr.Dattaram Krushna Pedamkar & Other,
Mariamma Nagar, Room No.33, M-223,
Behind Neharu Center, Dr, A.B.Rd, Worli,
V/s
Municipal Corporation, G/north Ward Office,
1st Floor, N.M Joshi Marg, Parel,
Public Information Officer cum Colony Officer
Municipal Corporation, G/north Ward Office,
1st Floor, N.M Joshi Marg, Parel,
Mumbai – 400 013.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information copies of documents which formed the basis
for preparation of annexure II (Mariamma Nagar, Behind Nehru centre, Worli). The PIO
by his letter dated 19.09.2008 informed the appellant that he has been given a copy of
annexure II and no Photopass was issued during 1995-2008.
The First Appellate Authority by his order dated 25.10.2008 informed the
appellant that the document on the basis of the Annexure II was prepared were not
available and therefore could not be furnished. He also reiterated that no Photopass have
been issued during 1995-2008.
information. The responded stated that the papers were not available and no Photopass
were issued during 1995-2008.
parties I have come to the conclusion that available information has been furnished. if
the annexure II which has been given to the appellant is not according to his expectation,
he can take it up with the authority which has prepared the document. No order for
correcting or revising the annexure II can be given under RTI Act. I therefore close the
case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1938/02
Mr.D.T. Chafe,
60-C, Bhupen Chambers,
4th Floor, 9, Dalal Street, Fort,
V/s
Office of the Charity Commissioner,
Charity Commissioner Bhavan,
3rd Floor, 83, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. … Respondent
3rd Floor, 83, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of the five member’s committee report which was
headed by the Charity Commissioner.
information. The PIO had sent his application to Asstt Charity Commissioner III who
never replied. The First Appellate Authority has not given the information on the ground
that there was no such report.
The respondent’s contention is that since no report of the committee was
available, the question of furnishing the same does not arise. It has also been elaborated
by the First Appellate Authority that 5 member committee under the Chairmanship of the
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai was appointed to find out how many trusts fall in the
category of Wakf for starting the work of Wakf Board established under the Wakf Board
Act. He directed the second part of the information should be furnished by the judicial
branch of the Charity Commissioner. The Supdt was directed to furnish the same.
parties I have come to the conclusion that since the information does not exist, the
question of furnishing the same does not arise. Since Hon High Court has recorded that
the committees report be placed on the file of the cases, it should be important to find out
whether the report has been placed in the case file before the Hon High Court. The
second issue has not been agitated by the appellant during the hearing before the
commission. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1938/02
Mr.D.T. Chafe,
60-C, Bhupen Chambers,
4th Floor, 9, Dalal Street, Fort,
V/s
3rd Floor, 83, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. … Respondent
3rd Floor, 83, Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of the five member’s committee report which was
headed by the Charity Commissions.
information. The PIO had sent his application to Asstt Charity Commissioner III who
never replied. The First Appellate Authority has not given the information on the ground
that there was no such report.
The respondent’s contention is that since no report of the committee was
available, the question of furnishing the same does not arise. It has also been elaborated
by the First Appellate Authority that 5 member committee under the Chairmanship of the
Charity Commissioner, Mumbai was appointed to find out how many trusts fall in the
category of Wakf for starting the work of Wakf Board established under the Wakf Board
Act. He directed the second part of the information should be furnished by the judicial
branch of the Charity Commissioner. The Supdt was directed to furnish the same.
parties I have come to the conclusion that since the information does not exist, the
question of furnishing the same does not arise. Since Hon High Court has recorded that
the committees report be placed on the file of the cases, it should be important to find out
whether the report has been placed in the case file before the Hon High Court. The
second issue has not been agitated by the appellant during the hearing before the
commission. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1667/02
Mr.Mahaveerprasad Saini
V/s
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding his complaint against the
developer M/s Gajraj Housing Nirman Pvt Ltd. The appellant had through his advocate
(petition dated 04.02.2008) had sought cancellation of the sanctioned slum rehabitation
scheme at CTS No 629 Part Kherwadi, Bandra (E), Mumbai.
The appeal was heard on 25.02.2009. Appellant and respondents were absent.
The appellant has contended that the scheme has been wrongly sanctioned and the
area has not been declared a slum without which no scheme under the SRA can be
sanctioned.
The respondent’s contention is that information has been furnished by the PIO’s
letter dated 25.01.2008.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the complaint has been made requesting
cancellation of the scheme. The PIO has furnished the relevant information. The
grievance of the appellant cannot be sorted out at commission’s level. He should take up
the issue before the appropriate competent authority.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2129/02
Mr.Sudhakar Nitekar, Anil Tharthare
Shop No.4, Shashtri Nagar,
V/s
Public Information Officer cum Collector,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to SRA scheme on plot no CTS
629 (part) Village Bandra (E), Mumbai.
The appellant has contended that he is not satisfied with information given to him.
The respondent contended that he has given the available information. It was finally
decided that the appellant should be given the inspection and copies of selected
documents should be given to him.
Order
Appellant to be allowed inspection of document and furnished copies of selected
documents within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2149/02
Mr. Harish Chandu Badekar
304/7, Tejomay CHS,
Sector No.3, Charkop,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. … Appellant
V/s
General Administrative Deptt. (14-A)
Mantralya, Mumbai – 400 032. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Under Secretary
Mantralya, Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to condonation of break in
service the basis / file on the basis of which govt. circular dated 06.05.87 was issued and
administrative reasons for provisions contained in para 2 & 4.
information.
The respondent’s contention is that required information has been furnished by
the PIO as well as the First Appellate Authority in time. The original file from which the
circular dated 06.05.87 was issued was not traceable. It has also been contended by them
that they are not expected to give their interpretation under the RTI Act.
is not expected to give ones interpretation under the RTI Act. A copy of the circular

seems to have been provided but the original file was not traceable. The circular dated
06.05.87 explains the procedure for condonation of break. I therefore close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2148/02
Mr. Harish Chandu Badekar
304/7, Tejomay CHS,
Sector No.3, Charkop,
Kandivali (W), Mumbai – 400 067. … Appellant
V/s
Public Information Officer cum Under Secretary
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to condonation of break in
service the basis / file on the basis of which govt. circular dated 06.05.87 was issued and
administrative reasons for provisions contained in para 2 & 4.
information.
The respondent’s contention is that required information has been furnished by
the PIO as well as the First Appellate Authority in time. The original file from which the
circular dated 06.05.87 was issued was not traceable. It has also been contended by them
that they are not expected to give their interpretation under the RTI Act.
is not expected to give ones interpretation under the RTI Act. A copy of the circular

seems to have been provided but the original file was not traceable. The circular dated
06.05.87 explains the procedure for condonation of break. I therefore close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2151/02
Mrs. Hilda Gonsalves
Dots, Flat No.402,
10 St. John Road,
Pali, Bandra (W),
V/s
Dy District Registrar of Coop Societies,
(DDR) Sgri Vikas Rasal,
Grihanirman Bhavan, Ground Floor,
Room No.69, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondent
Dy Registrar of Coop Societies,
DrV.S Phad, H/W Ward,
Sahakar Bazaar Bldg, 4th Floor,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to documents submitted at the
time of registration of Dots Co-operative Housing Society, Pali, Bandra (W), Mumbai.
absent.
The appellant has contended that the documents sought are very important and it
is not enough to say that they are not traceable. They should be reconstructed and copies
furnished to her.
parties I have come to the conclusion that it is not enough to say that the documents are
not traceable. This is the most important document as far as a society is concerned. The
PIO will make diligent efforts to trace / reconstruct and inform the commission its
outcome by an affidavit.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1744/02
Irla Society Road,
V/s
M.G. Road No.2, Kandivali (W),
Public Information Officer cum Assit Engineer (B & F)

M.G. Road No.2, Kandivali (W),
Mumbai – 400 067.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the compound wall and
Monsoon shed constructed / erected by Hotel Suruchi, Pure Vegetarian, Anant
Apartments and Hotel Delicacy, Pure Vegetarian, Thakur Complex Mumbai 400 101.
The appellant has contended that he has not got information he had sought.
The respondent’s contention is that the PIO by his letter dated 17.07.2008 and the
First Appellate Authority by his communication dated 12.09.2008 had sent necessary
information to the appellant. The respondent also stated that the unauthorized
construction has been removed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2144/02
Mr. Santosh Mahadev Chikane
Chikne House, Near Municipal Marathi School,
Jakeria Rd, Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 064. … Appellant
V/s
P.D. Lion’s College,
Sunder Nagar, Malad (W),

P.D. Lion’s College,
Sunder Nagar, Malad (W),
Mumbai – 400 064.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to no of classes in FYJC
Commerce during 2007 to 2008 and if the no of has been reduced the causes there of, no
of vacancies during 2008- 2009 and no of seats reserved for members of the Managing
committee.
absent.
despite repeated requests. The respondent was absent so facts could not be verified I
Order
PIO to furnish the required information within 15 days. he should also show
cause he should not be find @ Rs.250/- per day under section 20 of the RTI Act for not
furnishing the information.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1645/02
Mr. Mukesh Ramani (Director)
Silver Jubilee Traveller Ltd,
Shop No. 5 & 6, Alaukar Bahavn,
Next to Lalit Mahal,
Restaurant, 1132/2 Shivaji Nagar,
Opp. HDFC Bank, Fergussion College Rd,
Pune – 411 016. … Appellant
V/s
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves rd, Andheri (E),

Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation,
Udyog Sarathi, Mahakali Caves rd, Andheri (E),
Mumbai – 400 093.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding Osmanabed Air Strip tender
for setting up a flying Training School / Academy.
was present.
The appellant has contended that the information was not given to him within 30
days of submission of his application and even after payment of the required amount.
The respondent’s contention is that information has been sent by their covering
letter dated 30.09.2008 and acknowledgement has also been received.

parties I have come to the conclusion that al though information has been furnished but
late even after depositing Rs.110/-. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
PIO to show cause why should not fine @ Rs.250/- per day for late furnishing of
the required information. His reply to be sent within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2122/02
Mr.Hiralal Devnath Kumbar
B-409, Andheri Saibaba CHS,
Old Nagardas Rd, Andheri (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Engineering Division,
SRA, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Engineering Sales Division

SRA, Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to change in the Rehah Building,
Flats and copies of the certificates issued by the architect and Engineering section of the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority.
absent.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given the information required
by him. Since the respondent was not present it could not he verified. I therefore pass
Order
PIO to furnish the information within 15 days. he should also show cause why
action under section 20 of the RTI Act 2005 should not be taken against him.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2114/02
Mr.Kanhiyalal Chabulal Jalgaonkar
12, Anupam Housing Society,
Shinde Nagr, Opp. Dadawadi,
Jalgaon – 425 001. … Appellant
V/s
State Election Commissioner,
Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 032. … Respondent

Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has given suggestions for improvement in the system of governance
and also how to reform the existing electoral process.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 23.03.2009. The appellant did not turn up
but the respondent was present.
The respondent’s contention is that the application was not received in the office
of the Election Commission. The question of furnishing the information did not arise.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the case deserves to be closed. No specific
information has been sought suggestions for improvements in the existing system are
good but do not fall within the purview of Right to Information Act. The application &
the first appeal are also not in proper format. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1620/02
Mr.Omprakash Bhaurao Chute,
Flat No.5, Pragati Nagar, Ta. Amadi,
Dist. Nagapur 441 002. … Appellant
V/s
Office of the Lok Ayukta,
New Administrative Building,
Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. … Respondent

Office of the Lok Ayukta,
New Administrative Building,
Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to appointment to the post of
from the open category. The appellant says that injustice has been done to him.
was present.
The appellant has contended that injustice has been done while recruiting from the
open category.
Such issues cannot be sorted out under the RTI. The appellant has to approach
the competent authority empowered to intervene. I am constrained to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2155/02
Mr.Dinesh Pandurang Shurkar,
A-7/13/N.L-2 Sector-1,
Nerul, Navi, Mumbai – 400 706. … Appellant
V/s
Electric Supply & Transport, Bijlee Bahavan,
1st Floor, Kussara Bunder Rd,
Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 010. … Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Divisional Engineer

Electric Supply & Transport, Bijlee Bahavan,
1st Floor, Kussara Bunder Rd,
Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 010.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding cable laying and installation of
distribution pillar in slum areas of Dharavi.
The appeal was heard on 30.03.2009. The respondent was present.
It is revealed from case papers and written submission made by the respondent
that the required information has been collected by the appellant. The case is therefore
closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2152/02
Mr.Ratan Dattu Dhangar
B-2, Chembur Shri Sidhivinayak Coop. Housing Board,
Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, Mumbai – 400 089. … Appellant
V/s
Public Information Officer cum Assit Registrar

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Sidhivinayak Cooperative
Housing Board Society, Mahatma Jyotiba Phulenagar, Tilak Nagar, Chembur, Mumbai.
The appellant has sought list of members submitted by the society, copy of the bye law
and copy audit report.
absent.
The appellant has contended that despite the First Appellant’s order, the PIO has
not furnished the information. She has requested for penalizing the PIO. Since the
respondent was absent it could not be verified. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
PIO to show cause why be should not be find @ Rs.250/- per day under section
20 of the RTI Act 2005. His explanation to reach the commission in 3 weeks.
Information to be furnished within 3 weeks.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2101/02
Mr.Pravin Mahadev Dali
A/603, Mauli CHS. Ltd,
Near Mitha Municipal School,
Mahatma Gandhi Rd, Goregaon (W),
V/s
Home Deptt.
Public Information Officer cum Desk Officer

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought inspection of the file relating to the objections raised by
the Accountant General in connection with payment of additional passenger tax and also
file regarding notification of amended passenger tax.
was present.
The appellant has in his appeal stated that he has not been furnished the
information. The respondent has made a detailed submission in writing. It has been
stated by him that relevant file was shown during the hearing of the first appeal and
necessary information has also been furnished. The appellant’s acknowledgement is on
record.
In the light the above the commission decides to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2121/02
Shri. Shakeel Hasan Pathni
201, Madhu Compound,
Sonawala X Rd No.2,
Near Yadav Transport
Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 069. … Appellant
V/s
SWD Deptt, K/West Ward,
Sr. Officer, BMC Bldg, 6th Floor,
Paliram Marg, Andheri (W),

SWD Deptt, K/West Ward,
Sr. Officer, BMC Bldg, 6th Floor,
Paliram Marg, Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought copies of all correspondence between storm water Drain
department & Architect / Developer regarding SRA project at Plot No CTS No.66/ 1 to 5,
65 part, Village Amboli, Andheri, Mumbai.
was present.
The appellant has contended that the required information has not been furnished.
He has also stated that he has not been informed the ground on which the developer was
allowed to over the nalla.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant was offered inspection of
documents in the storm water Drains department. He was also informed that as far
information on nalla is concerned he should get in touch with Executive Engineer central
cell SWD, N.M. joshi Marg, Mumbai to whom his application was forwarded.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant should inspect the relevant file

and ask for copies of selected documents. It is not enough to say that he wanted copies
all correspondence. The information sought is not clear and the best way to have the
information is to inspect the relevant file.
Order
Inspection to be allowed within 30 days and copies of selected documented to be
furnished.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2115/02
Mr.Kanhiyalal Chabulal Jalgaonkar
12, Anupam Housing Society,
Shinde Nagr, Opp. Dadawadi,
Jalgaon – 425 001. … Appellant
V/s
Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 032. … Respondent

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has given suggestions for improvement in the system of governance
and also how to reform the existing electoral process.
The appeal was fixed for hearing on 23.03.2009. The appellant did not turn up
but the respondent was present.
The respondent’s contention is that the application was not received in the office
of the Election Commission. The question of furnishing the information did not arise.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the case deserves to be closed. No specific
information has been sought. Suggestions for improvements in the existing system are
good but do not fall within the purview of Right to Information Act. The application &
the first appeal are also not in proper format. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/1985/02
Smt. M.M. Warkhandkar

4 / 94, Sahjivan, Ganesh Nagar,
Lalbaug, Mumbai – 400 012. .… Appellant
V/s
Engineering Service & Project,
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. …. Respondent
Head Office, 3rd Floor, Mahapalika Marg,
Public Information Officer cum Chief Officer,

(Enquiry) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
GROUNDS
This appeal has been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding Shri. Vijay Maruti Jakhani (MLJO)
Solid Waste Management, MCGM. The appellant had asked for information whether some
action was taken against him for indulging into the business of money lending & also
information available with MCGM regarding court cases in this regard. Not satisfied with
responses from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the
appellant has come in second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on
2.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant stated that information
has been denied on the ground that the information sought does not fit into the definition
and it is in the form of question. The respondent did not have anything to add. I do not
agree with the findings Answers to hypothetical questions are not expected. Information
which is available in material form has to furnished.
I therefore do not agree with the findings. I pass the following order.

Order
The appeal is allowed and order of the First Appellate Authority is set aside.
The available information relating to enquiry against Shri. Jakhani should be furnished.
This should be done within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1989/02
Shri. Jagnarayan M. Kahar

C.I.T.U., Andheri Centre,
Bakhtawar Bldg.,
2nd Floor, Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 058. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Chief Transportation Manager,
Best Undertaking,
Transport Head Office,
Administrative Building, 2nd Floor,
Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 031. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Senior Government Officer,

(Transport), Best Undertaking,
Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 031.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 23.7.2008 had sought information regarding
payment of overtime from 1.11.2008 to employees working at Oshiwara Bus Depot.
His application / first appeal was rejected because he had asked for future information
where as the RTI Act ensures furnishing of available information. The appellant has
come in second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant submitted that it was a slip of pen
on his part and what he wanted was information from November, 2007 to July 2008. The
respondents were agreeable to furnish the information.

Order
The appeal is allowed. Respondent to furnish necessary information within 30
days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1988/02

Bakhtawar Bldg.,
V/s
Best Undertaking,
Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,

Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 031.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding plying of air conditioned bus on
route no. 415. He had also asked information on 6 other related points. The appellant
was not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First
Appellate Authority and hence this appeal. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. The
appellant has stated that the information given was not complete. Respondents submitted
that they have given all the required information. They have also made written
submission. I have gone through the case papers and also detailed submission made by
the respondent. The information furnished is elaborate and exhaustive. I therefore, come
to the conclusion that information has been furnished. I pass the following order.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1984/02
Shri. Nitin M. Sarvaiya

51 / 1119 Aazad Nagar 3,
Vira Desai Road,
Andheri (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Estate Manager II,

Mumbai Housing Area Development Authority,
Bandra (East),
Public Information Officer cum Estate Manager II,

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 29.4.2009 had sought information relating
to building no. 51, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar, Andheri. The Public Information
Officer by his reply dated 22.5.2009 furnished the required information. The appellant
was not satisfied and preferred the first appeal under section 19 (1) of the Right to
Information Act 2005. There is nothing on record to show that the First Appellate
Authority has passed any order. Hence this appeal.
The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The
appellant has alleged that the information was incomplete and he never received the
copies mentioned in Public Information Officer’s letter dated 22.5.2009 (point no. 2).
The respondent showed willingness to furnish the information again. Following order is
passed.

Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Public Information Officer to send a copy of the
letter as mentioned in para 2 of his reply dated 22.5.2008.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1983/a/02
Shri. Noorul Huda Shamsuddoha

U.T.No.553, Separate Barrack,
Ratnagiri Special Prison,
Ratnagiri,
M.S. 415612. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dean

K.E.M. Hospital,
Parel,
Public Information Officer cum Dean

K.E.M. Hospital,
Parel,
Mumbai – 400 012.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought copies of his medical report prepared at K.E.M.
Hospital, Mumbai. The Public Information Officer, K.E.M. Hospital sent the information
but the appellant was not satisfied. He preferred the first appeal under section 19 (1) of
the RTI Act 2005. The appellant says no response has been received from the First
Appellate Authority and hence this appeal.
The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The respondent
was present. It has been submitted by him that the appellant was brought to the hospital
by police. He was examined like any other patient and reports / copies have been sent to
him at his Arthur Jail address. Appellant does admit having received 3 reports but says
he should have been given 12-15 reports. The respondent told the Commission that
whatever papers were available have been furnished. He also stated that the hospital
treats everyone as a patient and the question of furnishing some reports and retaining
some does not arise. In fact the appellant is also not sure and have not indicated specific

reports which have not been given to him. In the light of the above discussion, I
conclude that the information has been furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1986/02
Shri. Subhash A. Pawar .… Appellant

Sir J.J. Institute of Applied Arts,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Prabhari Adhishtata …. Respondent

Fort, Mumbai – 400 001
Public Information Officer cum Prabhari Adhishtata

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had asked for copies abstract of attendance register of students,
copies of correspondence made by the administrative office, list of students who were
expelled from the college and copies of letters sent to students as per law. The
information was sought for the year 2003-2004 till the applicant’s application for
information. The information was furnished but not in time. This is the main reason of
appeal.
The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. As
stated earlier, the main contention of the appellant is that information was submitted late.
The respondent has pleaded that lack of staff, reluctance on the part of some of the staff
members and nature of the information have contributed for the delay. It is admitted that
the furnishing of information has been delayed. I pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The Public Information Officer to explain why action
should not be initiated under section 20 of the Right to Information Act for not furnishing

information in time. The explanation should come to the Commission within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1923/02
Shri. Chandu Tulsidas Pahuja

C/603, Atlanta Co-operative Hsg. Socty. Ltd..
Evershine Nagar, Malad Marve Link Road,
Valnai Village, Malad West,
V/s

Co-operative Societies, “P” Ward,
Malhotra House, 6th Floor,
Opp. G.P.O., Fort,
Public Information Officer cum Hon. Secretary / Chairman,

Atlanta Co-operative Hsg. Socty. Ltd..
Mumbai – 400 064.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought the following information:-
1. Certified legible True Copies of very first and last paid Property Tax Bills
and Water Bills to Mumbai Municipal Corporation by Atlanta Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd.
2. Certified legible True Copy of very first of the Old Registered Bye-Laws
in the year 1987-88 of the Society.
3. Legible Certified True Copy of City Survey Plan, Property Card and
Occupation Certificate of Atlanta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
4. List of Managing Committee Members Elected and co-opted from time to
time till date.
5. Certified True Copies of Address and Telephone Numbers of Contractors,
Consultants, Office Managers and Staff appointed by Atlanta Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd, since 2003 till date.
Appellate Authority, the appellant has come in second appeal before the Commission.

information sought by the appellant is available at the Society’s level. The Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act 1960 gives enough powers to the District Deputy Registrar to
force societies to meet legitimate demands of members. The issues whether Societies
come under the RTI Act has not been finally decided. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in
its judgment in writ petition no. 16901 / 2006 (GM RES) has held that solely on the basis
of supervision and control by the Registrar of Societies, a society cannot be termed as
public authority. So as to include a Society, within the definition of the term ‘Public
Authority’ it should fulfill the conditions stipulated in such clause (d) of clause (b) of
section 2 of the RTI Act. We at the Commission however have devised a via media the
information which is held by the office of the Deputy Registrar or should have been held
by him can be accessed. The information sought by the appellant obviously does not fit
into the category. Property tax, addresses and telephone no. of members, occupation
certificate etc. The appellant however can approach the Deputy Registrar under the
Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960 which sufficiently arms the Deputy
Registrar to provide relief to Society members. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is disallowed.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1992/02
Shri. Satish Ramchandra Rane

Peru Chawl, 1st Floor, Room No. 27,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Chief Fire Officer,
Municipal Corporation Of Greater Mumbai,
Mumbai Fire Brigade,
Mumbai. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Chief Fire Officer,

Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding inquiries against Shri. Devidas
Madhukar Lokhande, Fire Service of MCGM. Not satisfied with responses from the
Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant filed the
second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 2.3.2009.
The appellant did not turn up. The respondent was present. He has submitted a copy of
the letter dated 13.8.2008. The letter is from the Asstt. Public Information Officer and
addressed to the appellant. It has given details of enquiries and punishment awarded to
Mr. Lokhande. In view of this, I conclude that information has been furnished and the
case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1987/02
Shri. Jaan Mohammad Gulam Mohammad Khan

C/o. Plot No. 27/A/46-47 (Road No. 2),
Shivaji Nagar, Gowandi,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Municipal Commissioner (I),

(Sudhar) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Head Office, Ext. Bldg., 3rd Floor,
Mahapalika Marg, Fort,

TAVO, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
Room No.211, 2nd Floor, Ext. Bldg.,
Head Office, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant is one of the persons whose structures were affected because of
training of Rafi Nagar Nulla. The appellant was offered a pitch but the same was
encroached by another person. The MCGM allotted to him another plot. The appellant
however, wanted a photo pass which was denied saying that while structure was
protected, he is not entitled to have a photo pass. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009.
Appellant and respondent were present. The respondents have conducted an enquiry into
the allegations made by the appellant. They have obtained Municipal Commissioner’s
order and the same has been communicated. A copy of the report was also furnished to
him. The appellant is still not satisfied and fears that MCGM may remove him at will.
He wants to be assured that his structure will remain protected. The formal allotment
letter has been issued to him. He has also pointed that enquiry officer has remarked that
his structure is illegal and should be removed.
I have gone through the entire file and also listened to parties. Since the appellant
has been formally allotted pitch no.28, the question of his being illegally does not arise.
The enquiry officer said that the remark was because of the fact that allotment letter was
not shown to him. The remark thus becomes infructuous and invalid. Since it has

already been admitted that his structure is protected, I see no reason for him to worry.
The officials present also assured him that he would get the same protection and
treatment as other allottees. In the light the above discussion, the case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2011/02
Shri. Arun Ganpat Bhowar

A / 603, Sai Aashih,
Near Jankalyan Bank,
Station Road, Vikroli,
V/s

Co-operative Societies,
Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra (E),

Arun Niwara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Bldg. No. 167, Kannamwar Nagar No. 1,
Vikroli (E),
Mumbai – 400 083.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information from Arun Niwas Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd., Kannamwar Nagar, Vikroli. There is nothing on record to show
that any information was passed on to the appellant. The appellant approached the First
Appellate Authority but no order seems to have been passed. The appeal was heard on
4.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were present.
The appellant had approached the society under section 6(1) of the Right to
Information Act. He preferred first appeal before the Deputy Registrar. He has
approached the Commission in the second appeal. The society has not been designated
as Public Information Authority. Then the first appeal and again the second appeal are
not in order and hence not tenable. Since the first application under RTI was presented to
society which has not been designated as Public Information Authority by the competent
authority, the question of second appeal does not arise. I therefore, pass the following
order.
Order
The appeal is dismissed.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2009/02
Shri. Bhushan Bhagwandas Ghodi (Patel)

Bhagwandas House, C/16, Chincholi Bandar Road,
Malad (West),
V/s

5th Floor, Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra (W), Mumbai – 400 051. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had wanted to know whether any redevelopment scheme on his
property CTS 1061, Part 1 to 22 Survey No. 448 / 2, CTS No.1060 part 1 to 13 Survey
no. 448/3, CTS 1135 Survey No. 440 Part I has been sanctioned. He was not satisfied
with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority and
hence this appeal. The appeal was heard on 4.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up.
The respondent was present. He has stated that no scheme has been sanctioned on those
CTS / SN as mentioned by the appellant. It is not enough to inform the Commission, the
appellant must be informed. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Public Information Officer to furnish information within
30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2006/02
Shri. Shekhar Kashinath L. Kapure

59, Ambedkar Sadan,
Curry Road,
Mumbai – 400 013. . … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Asstt. Commissioner
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
“L” Ward, Kurla,
Public Information Officer Senior Inspector Licenses

License Department,
394 Section,
Mumbai – 400 070.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had asked for copies of documents submitted by the management of
Sai Enterprises for obtaining license under section 394 of BMC Act. Not satisfied with
appellant has preferred this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard
on 4.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has stated that he
has not been given complete information. The respondent stated that they granted license
in 2002 and necessary copies have been provided to the appellant. The appellant
however has pointed out that the owners of Sai Enterprises in their application for license
under section 394 of the BMC Act have mentioned that they were doing business at the
premises since 1991. The respondent’s response was that they are having information
and related papers from 2002 although Sai Enterprises might be running business
unauthorisedly. They have stated that they have no papers / documents of 1991.
I have gone through the case papers and also considered the arguments advanced
by parties. The fact that applicant mentioned that he was doing business since 1991 does
not make it necessary that he must have applied for license. The license department will
have documents only when someone approaches them for a license. The appellant’s
contention that because the applicant claims to be doing business since 1991 and
therefore the license department must be having related papers is not correct. If papers
from 2002 have been furnished, I see no reason to deny papers of 1991. I accept
respondent’s contention. In the light of above discussion I come to the conclusion that
available information has been furnished. I decide to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2003/02

59, Ambedkar Sadan,
Curry Road,
V/s

“L” Ward,
Kurla, Mumbai – 400 070. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Engineer

Building & Factory,
“L” Ward,
Kurla, Mumbai – 400 070.
GROUNDS
2005. Shri. Shekhar Kashinath Kapure had sought information whether permit under
section 390 of the BMC Act has been given to M/s. Sai Enterprises. The Asstt.
Commissioner by his order dated 30.8.2008 informed him permit under section 390 has
not been given to Sai Enterprises. The appellant however has quoted your report saying
that the permit was shown to you during your inspection. This to be clarified. It is
therefore, requested that kindly attend this office on 30.4.2009 at 4.00 p.m. along with
relevant papers. Failure to appear may lead to issuance summons under the Right to
Information Act.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2015/02

“Casa Almeida” Flat 103,
1, St. Joseph Road, Off St. Paul Rd.,
Bandra (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Divisional Dist. Registrar,

Co-operatives Societies,
Grihnirman Bhavan (MHADA Bldg.),
Ground floor, Room No. 69,
Bandra (East),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Registrar,

Cooperatives Societies,
Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information from Salsette Catholic Co-operative
Housing Society. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, H /West, Mumbai passed
an order under, section 7(92) (A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960.
The appellant has sought information regarding its compliance. He was not satisfied with
responses from the Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority and hence
this appeal. These appeals were heard on 4.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were
present. The appellant has stated that since the Deputy Registrar has passed an order in
his favour, he should know the status of compliance. He was also emphatic that the First
Appellate Authority also directed to furnish the information.
parties. I have come to the conclusion that information must be provided. I therefore,

Order
The appeal is allowed. Public Information Officer to furnish the information

required by the appellant within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2012/02
Smt. Leena Rao

1403, Cascade – I, Kulupwadi,
Borivali (East),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Registrar,

University of Mumbai,
Fort Campus,

Fort Campus,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had asked for a copy of the list of examiners in order of seniority in
the subject of Chemistry for M.Sc. (Organic) and B.Sc. (Chemistry) sent by SIES College
of Arts, Science and Commerce, Sion (West), Mumbai. The appellant has been denied
the information because it was treated as confidential. Hence this appeal. The appeal
was heard on 4.3.2009. The appellant was present. Respondents were absent. The main
point in the appeal is whether the information sought can be treated as confidential. The
reference to section 8(d) is not relevant. Everything that we do not want others to know
is marked confidential. The regime of Right to Information has changed all that. In this
case the college has sent list of persons who can be considered for examinership.
Nobody is asking the list which the university has finalised. The appellant is asking for
the list which her college has sent. I see no confidentiality in it. The appellant has to get
it. I pass the following order.

Order
The Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought by the appellant
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
State Information Commissioner, Mumbai.
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2018/02
Shri. Vijay Jaiswal,

35, Kanta Niwas, D.J.Road,
Vile Parle (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum City Survey Officer,

City Survey Department
S.V.Road,
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
Motor Garage Camp,
Santacruz,
Public Information Officer cum The Sr. State Information Officer,

S.V.Road,
Motor Garage Camp,
Santacruz,
Mumbai – 400 054.
GROUNDS
2005. The hearing was fixed on 5.3.2009. The appellant however has submitted his
application stating therein that he wanted to withdraw his appeal. The request is granted.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1237/02
Shri. Rajendra Panditrao Mali

C – 3, Bachat Sarita Building,
Civil Hudco, Tarakpur,
Tal. Dist. – Ahmednagar. . … Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Secretary,
Maharashtra Public Service Commission,
Bank of India Bldg., Mahatma Gandhi Marg,
Public Information Officer Dy. Secretary,

Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information from the Maharashtra Public Service
Commission. The information has been denied on the ground that the Anti Corruption
Bureau is investigating the case. The appellant has filed appeal against these orders. The
appeal was fixed for hearing on 2.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The respondent
was present. I have gone through the case papers. The First Appellate Authority has
passed a reasoned order. It is a fact that the ACB us still investigating the case. The
request has been rightly denied. There is no need to interfere with the order of the First
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2030/02
Bandra (W),
V/s
Bandra (East),

H/W Ward, Sahakar Bazar Building,
4th Floor, Bandra (W),
Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding his case – Leslie Almeida V/s
Salsette Catholic Co-operative Society. Not satisfied with responses from the Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has in 2nd appeal
before the Commission. The appeal was heard on 5.3.2009. Appellant and respondent
were present. I have gone through the case papers and also considered the arguments
advanced by parties. The information sought has to be provided. I therefore, pass the
following order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2031/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
case file Leslie Almeida V/s Salsette Catholic Co-operative Society. He also wanted to
know what action has been taken against the society and if no action has been taken,
reasons for not taking action. Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information
Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has preferred this second appeal
were present. The appellant has stated that despite order from the First Appellate
Authority, no information has been received by him. The respondent did not have much
to say. After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by
parties. I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. I therefore,

Order
The appeal is allowed. Public Information Officer to furnish necessary
information within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1924/02

V/s

Opp. G.P.O., Fort,

Mumbai – 400 064.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information:
1) Required Certificate True Copy of Resolution Passed in the Annual
General Meeting of Atlanta Co-operative Housing Ltd., held on 14th
August 2005.
2) How much amount has been spent on Major Repairs since April 2004
till date and how much amount has been collected from each of Member
on Sq. Ft. basis, furnish detail along with certified True abstract of the
up to date bills of the contractors involved in the Major Repairs of the
Society Buildings?
3) Whether Permission for Major Repairs has been obtained from Mumbai
Municipal Corporation through concerned department?, if yes please
furnish me the Certified True Copy of the Application made by the
License Structural Engineer appointed by the Society, also Certified
True Copy of the Permission granted by the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation “P” Ward, Mumbai For allowing you for Major Repairs.

4) Whether Buildings of Atlanta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., areas
per BMC Approved Plans i.e. Structural, Elevation, Room Layout Open
Space around the Buildings, Common area, Garden recreation, Common
Terraces on all levels of the Society Buildings?
5) Whether Society Land is lease hold or Free hold? Please give
clarifications with concerned documents (Certified True, signed and
sealed by Hon. Secretary of the society).
Appellate Authority, he has preferred second appeal before the Commission. The appeal
was heard on 17.2.2009. Appellant and respondents were present. It is seen from case
papers that the appellant sought information from the society by his letter dated 3.7.2008.
The appellant says that he received a reply through society’s advocate saying that
societies are not covered under RTI Act 2005. The appellant filed the first appeal under
section 19(1) of the RTI Act. It seems that the First Appellate Authority has not passed
any order. The appellant has requested for penal action against him. The issue whether
cooperative societies come under the RTI Act or not has not been finally settled. The
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its judgment in writ petition no. 16901 / 2006
(GM RES) has held that solely on the basis of supervision and control by the Registrar of
Societies, a society cannot be termed as public authority. So as to include a Society ,
within the definition of the term ‘Public Authority’ it should fulfill the conditions
stipulated in sub clause (d) of clause (b) of section 2 of the RTI Act. We at the
Commission, however, have devised a via media – the information which is held by the
office of the Deputy Registrar or should have been held by him can be accessed. The
information sought by the appellant obviously does not fit into the category. Property
tax, addresses and telephone no. of members, occupation certificate etc. are available at
society’s level. The appellant however can approach the Deputy Registrar under the
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2039/02
Shri.Nasir M.Shaikh
H – 145, Rafi Nagar, Shivaji Nagar,
Gowandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Asstt. Commissioner,

Office of the M / East Ward bldg.,
Mumbai …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum District Dy. Collector,

Welfare Centre Bldg., P.Y. Thorat Marg,
Near Chembur Railway Station,
Chembur (W),
Mumbai – 400 089.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding zopadpatti survey form no.
1517328 whether this form was with the Mumbai Municipal Council and other related
issues. The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 1.12.2008 informed him that
his form has been sent to ward office M East). The Asstt. Commissioner M (East)
however has informed him that the form was not available in his office.
Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the Commission.
The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was
present. The appellant has contended that the information has not been furnished to him.
The respondent’s contention is that appellant’s form has been sent to the ward
office M (East). He has stated that this survey was conducted on Municipal Land and
because of change in the policy the whole set of documents was sent to the ward M
(East). He has produced copies of some document which show that appellant’s
application was incomplete and sent to the ward office.
parties. It is revealed that these are two versions-tahsildar says, records have been sent
but the Asstt. Commissioner says they are not with him. Both versions cannot be true.
Since the tahsildar has submitted some papers to the Commission, I am inclined to direct
the Asstt. Commissioner to look into his records more carefully otherwise he may be held
responsible for furnishing wrong information.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The tahsildar will send a set of documents to the Asstt.
Commissioner M (East) who will thoroughly search his record collect the relevant
information and furnish to the appellant in 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2041/02
Shri. Hurbert James Misquitta

A – 501, Gokul Divine C.H.S.Ltd.,
‘James Wadi’, Off S.V.Road, Irla,
Vile-Parle (West),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum District Sub-Registrar,

Co-Op. Society (3), Room No. 69,
Ground Floor, Grihnirman Bhuvan,
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. …. Respondent

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought Certified Copies of all Meetings of Managing
Committee & Certified Copies of all payments made to various parties by cash or cheque
by Gokul Divine CHS Ltd. Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information
Officer and the First Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before
the Commission. The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were
present. The appellant has contended that the information sought has not been provided.
The respondent’s contention is that the information is available with the society and
appellant should collect from there.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information is not available with
the Public Information Officer. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960
empowers the District Deputy Registrar to provide relief to members of societies.
I therefore, pass the following order.

Order
The appeal is disposed off. The Deputy Registrar should provide relief to the
appellant under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2042/02

Vile-Parle (West),
V/s


GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information:
a) What is the percentage for Non-Occupancy Charges levied by the Society
and whether it is calculated on basis of maintenance charges or service
charges?
b) Certified copy of List of Parkings in the building, both stilt parking &
open parking.
c) Which parkings have been transferred, from & to whom, by the Society
from the formation of Society till date.
The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that he has
still not been furnished the information. The respondent’s contention is that this
information is available at society’s level and the appellant should obtain from these.
parties it is revealed that the society is not furnishing the information. Since society have
not been designated as Public Authorities it is not possible for the Commission to
intervene directly. The Commission however, is of the view that the information on point
no.1 may be furnished to the appellant. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is partially allowed. The Public Information Officer to furnish

required information to the appellant within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2026/02
Shri. Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Jahir Shaikh

Haji Yasin Chawl, Andheri Plot,
Jogeshwari (East),
V/s

K / West Ward Office Bldg., 2nd Floor,
Paliram Path,
Andheri (W),
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Engineer,

Building & Factories,
Paliram Path,
Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 053.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a certified copy of the complaint made against
encroachment by Mrs. Shehnaz Khan. The appellant also wanted to know details of
action taken.
received a copy of the complaint made by Shri. Pir Mohammed against Mohammed
Kalim and not Mrs. Shehnaz Khan as requested. The notice by MCGM was issued in the
name of Shehnaz Khan.
parties it is revealed that the notice was served to Shehnaz Khan and structure demolished
although the complaint was against Kalim Mohammed. It is nobody’s case that
authorised structure has been demolished. The appellant’s argument that complaint was
received on 6.8.2007 and notice issued on 7.8.2007. He suspected some conspiracy.
Nobody can be hauled up for being prompt. Technically, there was no complaint against
Shehnaz Khan. In view of the fact that unauthorised structure has been demolished after
service of notice I am of the view that the case should be closed. It is not correct to
conclude that the unauthorised structure was demolished without complaint and hence it
is wrong. I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2034/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to his complaint dated 22.1.2007
and action taken on his complaint. Not satisfied with responses from Public Information
the commission. The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. The appellant did not turn.
Respondents were present. He has not been informed what action has been taken on his
complaint against the Salsette Catholic Co-operative Housing Society. He has also
pleaded for action against the Public Information Officer. The respondent contention is
that action has already been initiated and the appellant has been informed.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished. Action has
already been initiated. The Public Information Officer informs the appellant about the
latest position. Action against societies has a long process and it is not possible to
monitor under the RTI Act. The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is sufficiently
equipped to provide relief to members of Cooperative Societies.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2033/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding case file Leslie Almeida V/s.
Selsette Catholic Co-operative Society – Compliance of circular from Commissioner of
Co-operative and Registrar, Maharshtra State Pune regarding adopting society in society.
Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate
Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal
was heard on 9.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present.
The appellant has contented he has not been furnished the information. He has
brought to the Commission’s notice that the First Appellate Authority had ordered the
Public Information Officer to arrange inspection relevant documents to the appellant.
The respondent’s contention is that necessary documents will be shown to him and copies
of selected ones will be provided.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appeal is to be allowed. I therefore, pass

Order
The appeal is allowed. The Public Information Officer to arrange for inspection
of documents and furnish copies of documents requested the appellant.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2010/02
Shri. Shankar N. Shetty

11-B, Shop No.
D’Silva Baug, Asalfa,
Ghatkopar (W),
V/s

M.M.R.D.A.,
Office of the Executive Engineer,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E),

M.M.R.D.A.,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 1.9.2008 had asked information on the
following points:
a) Whether the road Alignment of Eastern Express Highway to Sakinaka up
to L.B.S. of AGLR Sanctioned or not.
b) Provide a copy of Plan & related documents to road Alignment of Asalfa
at Map No. 9 & Map No. 8 of AGLR.
c) At map No.9 of Sakinaka to Asalfa, whether alignment was changed after
2004, give a copy of Map No.9.
d) The sanctioned Road line of BMC for AGLR at Sakinaka to LBS is
strictly followed by the competent authority while road widening in said
road.
e) Name of the Officer in charge regarding supervision this above matter.
There is nothing on record to show that either the Public Information Officer or
the First Appellate Authority has passed any order. The appeal was heard on 4.3.2008.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant reiterated his stand that
information has not been furnished to him. The respondent stated that they are only
executing the work and do not have all the information required by the appellant. I do
not agree. The Act provides that if the information sought does not relate to him, he
should have transferred the application to the Public Authority who is having the
information. Alternatively he can also seek information and furnish to the appellant.
Neither of the step has been taken by the Public Information Officer. I therefore, pass the
following order.
Order
The Public Information Officer to furnish information within 30 days. If he does

not have all the information he should collect from relevant development and furnish to
the appellant since this has not been done earlier.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 9.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2056/02
Shri. Sanjay Govind Dhuwali

4/305, ‘Rachna’, Chikhalwadi,
N.B.Marg,
Grant Road (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Director (Marketing)

Mumbai Board, Marketing
Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra,
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Director (Marketing)

Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to building no. 21 A
21 B, Bimbisar Nagar, Goregaon, Mumbai. The appellant has sought information
regarding grant of occupancy certificate, no. of tenements, no. of times advertisement for
sale has been given etc.
was present. The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the information.
The respondents have agreed to furnish the same. It is therefore, ordered that information
must be furnished within the time prescribed in this order failing which action under
section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated against the Public Information Officer.

Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by Public Information Officer
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2055/02
Shri.Ramesh Madhukar Salwe

Surji Vallabhdas Chawl,
(Shivshankar Chawl),
Vikroli (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Officer,

Rehabililtation, M.U.T.P,
M.M.R.D.A.,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Public Information Officer cum Project Manager,

M.M.R.D.A.,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to allotment of tenements to
Shri. Govind Kanade ID No. 184 at Nahar. The appellant stated that his name did not
appear in map no.7 but he has been allotted a tenement. He wanted to have copies of
documents which formed the basis of allotment.
was present.
The appellant has contended that despite the fact that Shri. Bhaskar Govind
Ranade’s name did not appear in map no.7, he was given tenement. He has not been
given copies of document which made him eligible. The respondent’s contention is that
the allotment has been done based on the baseline survey conducted by SPARK – an
agency which was appointed in consultation with the World Bank. The MMRDA does
not have any of the documents. They have gone by the survey report. They have also
contended that they had offered whatever information was in their possession but the
appellant refused to accept.
parties it is revealed that MMRDA has allotted tenement based on the Baseline Survey
report. They have contended the names were included in accordance with the guidelines
given to SPARK. Under these circumstances appellant can get whatever is available and
non existent information cannot be furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2045/02

Vikroli (E),
V/s

M.M.R.D.A.,

M.M.R.D.A.,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
Shri.Sunil Vasant Kudtarkar, Smt. Rekha Sunil Kudtarkar, Raghunath B.Karande,
Ibrahim Dustagir Bagwan & Smt. Hazarabi Ibrahim Bagwan at different sites. The
appellant wanted copies of document which formed the basis of allotment to them.
Not satisfied with responses from Public Information Officer and the First
The appeal was heard 12.3.2009.
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished copies of documents
which made these people eligible for allotment. The respondent’s contention is that
allotments have been done on the basis of the base line survey done by SPARK and SRS.
It has been stated by them that they do not have any original documents. They therefore
cannot furnish the information required by the appellant.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the issues raised by the appellant requires
investigation. Names of allottees reveal that they are husband and wife team. I am not

aware whether the Rehabilitation Policy allows allotment of separate tenements to
husband and wife. All the three cases are similar. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The MMRDA will get this investigated. Whether
husband and wife can be given separate tenements and inform the appellant within 30
days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2048/02
Shri. Muharam Ali Shafiulla Ansari

Dr. Zakir Husain Nagar,
Ghatkopar-Mankhurd Link Road,
Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum cum Asstt. Commissioner

M – East Ward Office,
2nd Floor, Sharad Bhau Acharya Marg,
Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. …. Respondent

Colony Office (4),
Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought following information:-
1) Information required about the complaint lodged with Sr. Colony Officer,
higher officers of M.C.G.M., lower officers of M.C.G.M. and complaint
received by Sr. Colony Officer from various places against Abdul Khalid
Sardar Shaikh.
2) What action Sr. Colony Officer had taken over my complaint against above
person over my complaint dispatch letters
1) 16.04.2007 dispatch no. P-209
2) 10.05.2007 dispatch no. P- 2147 with your office. Please inform
me in detail about the action taken.
3) The jhopada constructed by Abdul Khalid Sardar Shaikh in Dr. Zakir
Hussain Nagar is illegal, unauthorised, nor his name figure in voters list as
on 1.1.1995 then what action has been taken by your office against him and
his jhopada.
4) The Colony Officer Mr.Katkar has claimed to issue notice to Abdul Khalid
Sardar Shaikh, I asked him to furnish me the copy of the notice, its
receiving dated but no such required copy has been issued to me.
The appeal was heard on 12.3.2009 and the respondent has made his submission in
writing the appellant has contended that he has not been given information regarding
action taken on his complaint against Abdul Khalid Sardar Shaikh. The respondent’s
contention is that information has already been furnished. He has submitted copies of
documents offered to the appellant.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information has been furnished.
The Public Information Officer by his order dated 18.6.2007 has furnished the
information. It clearly says that verification was done and no action as per the Slum Act
was warranted against Shri. Abdul Khalid Sardar Shaikh. In the light of this I pass the
following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1848/02
Shri. Gopal Bapu Avghade

Bldg. No. 46, Room No. 1895,
2nd floor, Vartak Nagar,
Pokharan Road No. 1,
Thane – 400 606. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Managing Director,

Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe,
Vikas Mahamandal (Ltd.)
Govt. of Maharashtra Undertaking,
Collector’s Office,
5th Floor, Thane (W). …. Respondent
Public Information Officer District Manager,

5th Floor, Thane (W).
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding applications sent by Rajashri
Shikshan Sanstha to Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal Ltd. for Computer
Training, Beauty Parlour, Painting Automobile during 2004-2005 & 2005-2006. He has
also sought information regarding grants released to the institution during 2004-2005,
2005-2006.
present. The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the required
information. The respondent’s contention is that the information has been collected and
the appellant was asked to deposit Rs.500/-. He did not deposit the amount and has come
in appeal.
parties, it is revealed that the Public Information Officer has asked the appellant to

deposit Rs.500/-. He also stated that there were 395 applications and excess if any will
be refunded and short fall recovered from the appellant. This, I feel is not unreasonable.
The appellant should deposit the amount and collect the information.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2095/02
Shri. Sunil Haribhau Jogdand

63, Shastri Nagar,
Near Evergreen Hotel,
Bandra (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Commissioner,

Bhabha Hospital Bldg.
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer Asstt. Commissioner,

Western Syburb, K-East Zone Office,
Gundawali, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 069.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of the complaint letter written by
Hon.Dy.Chairman, Vidhan Parishad and action taken on that. Not satisfied with
responses from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority the
appellant has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on
19.3.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. Appellant has contended that the Hon.
Chairman had written a letter dated 12.9.2006. He had requested for a copy of the letter
and action taken report. The Public Information Officer and Asstt. Commissioner
(Encroachment Western Suburbs) by his letter dated 30.8.2007 informed the appellant
that they are in correspondence with Hon. Dy. Chairman for no objection. The First
Appellate Authority by his order dated 16.7.2008 ordered that a copy off the letter should
be given after taking necessary permission.
After going through the case papers the Commission has come to the conclusion
that information must be furnished. This is a letter written by a Public figure to a public
authority. The request for no objection remains unreplied. Again section II proviso is
very clear except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure
may be allowed if public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible
harm or injury to the interest of such third party. In the light the above discussion I am of
the opinion that the required information should be furnished.
Order
Information to be furnished by Asstt. Commissioner (Encroachment Removal)

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2096/02
Shri.Nishant Subhash Ghadge
21, “Gokul”,
Dr.Pednekar Bldg.,
S.M. Marg,
Kurla (W),
V/s

Charity Commissioner’s Office,
Mumbai Division,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. …. Respondent

Mumbai Division,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Kachchhi Visa Oswal Jain
Seva Samaj, Kurla. He sought documents relating to registration of the trust, permission
obtained from the Charity Commissioner, copy of the memorandum of association and
other documents.
Not satisfied with the responses from the Public Information Officer and the First
not been given the required information. The respondent’s contention is that since the
range of information was very wide it took sometime to compile. It was stated by her
that she has brought the information and was ready to hand over to the appellant. The
appellant also agreed to accept. The documents were handed over to the appellant. The
appellant however expressed his apprehension that he might not have been given full
information. The balance available information if any should be handed over / furnished
to him within 15 days of his request.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2092/02
Shri. Pradeep Shamrao Patil
508/B2, Unity Complex,
Rajanpada, Off Link Road,
Opp.Toyata Showroom,
Malad (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer Additional District Registrar,
Family Court Building,
Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the agreement deed registered
under registration receipt no. P/2556/91. Not satisfied with responses from the Public
appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on 19.3.2009.
not been provided the information despite furnishing all relevant details. The
respondent’s contention is that the document was not readily available and hence the
information could not be furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion the information must be furnished.
Order
Appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by Public Information Officer

within 15 days, failing which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2091/02
Shri. Namdeo Kashinath Kamble

Rameshwar Chawl Committee Unit – 1559,
Sandesh Nagar, Bail Bazar,
Kurla Andheri Road,
Kurla (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer Asstt. Commissioner,
N – Ward, Municipal Office,
Ghatkopar (E),
Public Information Officer Asstt. Engineer,

Ghatkopar (E),
Mumbai – 400 077.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the office of the Asstt.
Engineer (Maintenance) N- Ward, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai. Not satisfied with the
19.3.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contented that he has
not been furnished complete information. The ward officer has denied the existence of
unauthorised structure and has also not given information regarding deposit made by the
contractor. The respondent’s contention is that there are no structures and information
regarding deposit will be furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that remaining information must be furnished. The
Public Information Officer will inform him whether there are unauthorised structures and
if yes, he will take action and inform the appellant. The Public Information Officer will
furnish information regarding deposit made by the contractor.

Order
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2090/02
Shri. Macchindra N. Karalkar

Hazarabai House, Room No. 5,
Irla Station Road, Vile Parle (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer Asstt. Municipal Commissioner,
K /West Ward Office, 2nd Floor,
Paliram Path, Opp. BEST Stn.,
S.V.Road, Andheri (W),
Public Information Officer Medical Officer of Health

Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Hotel Maya Bhuvan
“Spring”, Hazarabai Shop No.1, Irla Station Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai – 400 056.
was present.
information - Certified copies of license, details of violations of conditions and
encroachment on compulsory open space. The respondent’s contention is that
information has already been furnished. It has also been disposed off within the time
limit.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by I
have come to the conclusion that the required information has been furnished. It is
therefore, decided to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2097/02
Smt.Poonam P. Patel
17, Vijay Bharat, 4th Floor,
Sahayog Nagar, Four Bunglow,
Andheri (W), .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer District Dy. Registrar,
Co-operative Societies (3), Mumbai Office,
Grihnirman Bhavan, Ground Floor,
Desk No. 69, Bandra (East),
Public Information Officer Dy. Registrar,

K – West Ward,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information:-
“Under which law and act administrator Mr. S.M.Mohite removed my
membership and my name from the “J” register of the society without any reason.
In case, if the information is not available with you, you are as per R.T.I. act 2005,
suppose to obtain from the administrator deputed by the Deputy Registrar K-west and
provide me. In case, if the information is not provided, it will be regarded as malafide
suppression of information by the Public Information Officer, the Deputy Registrar
K-west ward.”
absent. The appellant has contended that his name has been removed from ‘J’ register of
the society. He has sought information under which law his name was removed from the
register and for what reason.
The respondent was not present and so it is presumed that he has nothing to say.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by the
appellant, it is revealed that the appellant had sought information by his application dated
4.8.2008. The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 28.8.2008 informed the
appellant that he should obtain information from the Managing Committee to whom the
charge has been handed over by the Administrator. There is nothing on record to show
that the First Appellate Authority has passed any order. It is also pertinent to note that
the issue whether societies are covered under the Right to Information Act has not been
finally settled. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in its order in writ petition no. 16901 /
2006 (GM – RES) has observed that ‘solely on the basis of supervision and control by the
Register of Societies…. a society cannot be termed as public authority. So as to include a
society within the definition of the term public authority it should fulfill the conditions
stipulated in sub clause (d) of clause (h) of section 2 of the RTI Act.’ The information
asked in this case is not very clear. The DOPT under its circular dated 25.4.2008 has
clarified as follows:
Only such information is required to be supplied which already exists and is held
by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is not required
under the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems
raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
In the light of the above discussion it is clear that the Public Information has
informed the appellant in time and the question of any action against him does not arise.
I am also in agreement with him on the issue that the information is not available with
him and should be collected from the society. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1721/02
Shri.Pravin Nagesh Ratnapur

9, Kamathipura, Bldg. No. 28/30/32,
Room No. 8, 1st Floor,
S.P.Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Investigation Officer,
Member Secretary,
Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.1,
Mumbai Division,
Kokan Bhavan,
New Bombay. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar,

Mumbai City, Old Custom House,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding issuance of caste certificate.
Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the commission. The appeal
was heard on 24.2.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that his
original certificate was sent for verification to the Divisional Caste Verification
Committee. The Divisional Caste Verification Committee by his letter dated 18.10.2008
informed him that available evidence does not support his claim of being a Hindu Parit.
The appellant says that his certificate has been confiscated by the committee. He applied
to the Dy. Collector for a certificate that he belongs to ‘Kamati’ caste. No decision has
been taken and no information furnished. The respondent has contended that unless the
earlier certificate is cancelled, his application for caste certificate cannot be considered.
In the light the above following order is passed.
parties I am of the view that the Divisional Caste Verification Committee must clearly
inform the appellant about the status of his case for verification. The respondent has
agreed to consider appellant’s case once they receive some communication from the
committee that the earlier certification is cancelled / or no longer valid. I therefore, pass
the following order
Order
The Divisional Caste Verification Committee must inform clearly the appellant
and Dy. Collector regarding the status of his certificate (Hindu Parit). In case they have
cancelled, the same may be informed. This should be done within 3 weeks. The Dy.
Collector in charge of issuing caste certificate should consider appellant’s case on merit
and inform him accordingly.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1860/02
Shri.Tushar Babanrao Deshmukh

C/o Shri. B.N.Deshmukh
“Chandramauli” Rajarshi Shahu Nagar,
Ward No. 16, Tal – Buldhana,
Dist.- Buldhana – 443001. .… Appellant
V/s
Maharashtra Public Service Commission’s Office,
Public Information Officer cum Dy.Secretary,

Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to his application for copies
evaluated answer sheets. His request has been denied by the Public Information Officer
and the First Appellate Authority.
The appellant has contended that he had sought copies of his answer books which
have been denied. The respondent has contended that copies of evaluated answer books
are not given to candidates although marks are communicated to them. It has also been
stated that this is personal information and has no content of public interest. The
respondents have stated that even the Hon. Supreme Court does not accept this as a
fundamental right.
parties, it is revealed that the appellant had appeared for the competitive examination for
selection of Asstt. Sales Tax Inspector / Deputy Inspector of Police. He feels that his
paper no. 1 and 2 have not been evaluated properly. The Commission has been receiving
a large no. of such appeals. The Commission however is of the view that copies of
evaluated answer books need not be given. The Central Information Commission in
Appeal No. ICPB / A-2/ CIC / 2006 has held that supply of a copy of the evaluated
answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process.
I therefore, feel that the Public Information Officer’s and the First Appellate Authority’s
decision need not be interfered with. I therefore, disallow the appeal
Order
The appeal is disallowed
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1858/02
Shri. Purushottam Trimbak Vyas

Samarth Gajanan Nagar,
Old City,
Akola – 444002. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Joint Secretary,
Seva – 4 / A Health Department,
Mantralaya,

Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to alleged irregularities at
Murtuzapur Hospital, names of those involved whether Secretary’s Committee submitted
report to govt., names of officers who were suspended and names of officers who were
reinstated.
The appeal was heard on 21.2.2009. The appellant has contended that he has not been
furnished the information despite repeated requests.
The respondent’s contention is that since the matter is still under investigation, the
required information was not furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the respondent has denied the information
under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The section says that there shall be no obligation
to give information to any citizen if this was likely to impede the process of investigation
or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. While the report submitted to govt. and
names of officers allegedly involved and the proposed action may not be disclosed but
names of officers who were suspended and reinstated are matters of record and in my
view do not stand covered under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. I am therefore, of the

view that names of officers who were suspended and those reinstated should be
furnished. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Information to be furnished by Public

Information Officer within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1946/02
Prof. Patankar Nisarali Mohammed

2/204, Aaghadi Nagar,
Andheri (W), Pump House,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum General Secretary
Maharshtra College of Arts Science & Commerce
246 – A, Jahangir Boman Behram Road,

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Attested copies of audited (1) Statement of accounts
(2) Statement of income & expenditure
(3) Receipt books
(4) Ledger books /s
(5) Cash book / s
(6) Credit Voucher File
(7) Debit Voucher File
(8) Pass book/s or Statement of banks a/c’s
(9) Fixed deposit’s certificates
All for financial year ending 31st March, 2001 and all for Maharashtra College.
The appeal was heard on 18.3.2009. Appellants and respondents were present.
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished information despite
repeated requests. However, taking into account the nature of information sought. I am
of the view that the information must be furnished. It is however, seen that the appellant
has sought copies of documents which may be cumbersome to provide or may not be of
relevance like fixed deposit certificate, bank accounts etc. I am therefore of the view that

information on point no. I & II should be made available. I therefore pass the following
order.
Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Information on point no. I & II to be furnished by

Public Information Officer within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1887/02
Shri. Mahavir Prasad Saini & Others

Shri. Abdul Gaful K. Hunshal
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 032. .… Appellant.
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Upper District Collector
7th Floor, Administrative Bldg.,
Suburb, Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. District Collector

Suburb, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to Maharashtra Nagar,
Residents Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Kherwadi, CTS No. 629. The appellant had
sought copies all documents in connection with redevelopment exchanged between SRA
and the developer.
appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the information required by him.
It appears from case papers that he had inspected the documents and informed the
Additional Collector by his letter dated 20.5.2008 regarding his requirement. There is
nothing on record to show that he has been given the information. I therefore, pass the
following order.
Order

Information Officer within 15 days. Public Information Officer to show cause why
action under section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should not be initiated
against him.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1053/02
Shri.Raju Maruti More

Siddharth Nagar, Room No. 40,
Bhalekar Wadi,
Near Munjal Nagar Complex,
Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089. .… Appellant
V/s
Mumbai Metro city Redevelopment Authority,
Bandra (E),

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
i) Detailed Project Report (DPR) of Slum Sanitation Project (SSPS) in
Mumbai.
ii) Implementing agency.
iii) Time required for implementation of the project.
iv) Share of funds from Central, State govt. under the JNNURM Scheme
v) Any Community which has been affected.
vi) If yes, Rehabilitation policy for the project affected people (PAPs).
5) The period to which the information relates: Dec 2005 – July 2007.
Appellate Officer and the First Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second
appeal before the Commission. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.2.2002.
Appellant and respondent were absent. The appeal was fixed earlier also on 23.12.2000
but nobody had turned up. The case is therefore closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2063/02
Shri. Sanjay C. Patel

Canteen Plot No.2,
Kandivali Co-op.Ind. Estate Ltd.,
Charkop, Kandivali (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Registrar of Director
Industries (C.I.E.), 3rd Floor,
New Administrative Bldg.,
Opp. Mantralaya,

Opp. Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Kandivali Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Kandivali. The appellant had sought information on 14 points relating
to the Industrial Estate. His application dated 29.4.2008 to the Industrial has remained
unreplied. He filed the first appeal with Joint Registrar in the Director of Industries but
did not get the required information.
Appellant has contended that he has been designation as a Public Information
Officer and cannot act as the First Appellate Authority has been designated separately.
The respondent’s contention is that he needs information which he is not getting from the
Industrial Estate or the concerned Dy.Registrar of the area or the Joint Registrar in the
Directorate of Industries.
parties I have come to the conclusion that it is question of not designating Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority properly. The Joint Registrar is a
Public Information Officer so; he cannot hear the first appeal. Normally, the First
Appellate Authority should have been designated. Taking into account, the fact that
furnishing information is the most important of all issues I order that the Joint Registrar
who has been designated as Public Information Officer in the office of the Directorate of
Industries should furnish the information. If it is not available with him, he should
arrange to collect it and furnish to the appellant on point no.3,4,5 and 4 since the rest is
concerned with jurisdiction and other hypothetical issues. I pass the following order.
Order

within 30 days failing which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 20.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2110/02
Shri. Dattatray Ganpat Pawar,

F – 17, Police Colony,
Pathardi Junction,
Nasik – 9. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Divisional Controller,
Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation – Mumbai Division,
Kirol Road, Vidyavihar (W),
Public Information Officer cum Divisional Employee’s Officer,

Mumbai – 400 086.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to no. of vacancies to be filled
in by SC / ST. The appellant also asked for copies of evaluated answer books of 5
candidates who appeared for the departmental examination conducted for MSRTC.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that he has
not been furnished the required information. He has also stated that it has been wrongly
denied to him by quoting section (8) which does not apply.
The respondent’s contention is that they do not furnish copies of evaluated answer
books. He also submitted that the information regarding no. of vacancies filled in by SC/
ST is being furnished. He also apologised for delay and furnished to appellant
information relating to vacancies filled by SC/ST.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the first part of the information has been rightly
denied. The Commission also holds the view that copies of evaluated answer books need
not be furnished as this will lead to compromising the fairness and impartiality of the
examination system. Information on the second point has been furnished with apology.
I therefore, close the case.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 20.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2111/02
Shri. Laxman Tanka Devare

Chairman, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Seva Mandal,
85, Navi Peth, Jalgaon – 425001. .… Appellant
V/s
Industries, Energy and Labour Department,
Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 032. …. Respondent

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to display of photographs of
Mahatma Phule and Savitribai Phule in Govt. Offices as directed by Govt. The appellant
has also asked for information regarding no.of photographs collected by departments of
Govt.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that many
photographs have been supplied on payment. They are however collecting the figure of
distribution free of cost.
parties I have come to the conclusion that this information must be furnished. Govt.
instruction in this regard needs to be followed honestly. The required information will
show the extent of its implementation by different departments.

Order
within 15 days failing which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated
against the appellant.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 23.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1536/02

V/s
First Appellate Officer cum The President
Public Information Officer cum Hon. Gen. Secretary

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the appointment of Enquiry
Officer by the Disciplinary authority. He has sought the following information:-
1. Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 25.5.2007 which is appointment
order of Inquiry Officer.
2. Annexure I of Inquiry Report of Departmental Inquiry of the appellant.
not been given the information despite repeated request.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant has already these documents in
his possession. These documents were given to the appellant during the course of
enquiry.
the parties I have come to the conclusion that the information must be furnished. The
fact the appellant is in possession of the information cannot be a ground for denial of the
required information. I therefore, pass the following order.

Order

within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1599/02
Shri. Raj Bihari Pathak

15/534 (802/C), Mrugvihar Co-op.Hsg. Socty. Ltd.,
Subhash Nagar, Chembur,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy.Chief Officer (EM – II)
Grihnirman Bhawan, Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Estate Manager 3

Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the expanded form of his name R.R.Pathak. In fact he is
occupying a tenement which belonged to one Mr. R.K.Pathak. Mr. R.K.Pathak’s father
name also begins with ‘R’. The abbreviated forms of both names are R.R.Pathak. This
has led to some property dispute.
already given the information to the appellant by his letter dated 5.4.2008. The
respondent’s contention is that the information given was wrong because the name given
was that of the earlier owner.
parties I have come to the conclusion that this is some kind of comedy of error. The
appellant claims to be Raj Bihar R.Pathak and the original allottees name is Ram
Khelawan R.Pathak. The abbreviated form of both the name is R.R.Pathak. I see no
solution unless the appellant inspects the whole file and asks for whatever suits him. The
respondent agreed.

Order
The appellant to arrange inspection of the relevant file & furnish the copies of
selected documents. This should be done within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1809/02
Shri. Deepak Madhavrao Padalkar

17, Forest Colony,
Mini Bypass Road,
Amaravati – 444 606. .… Appellant
V/s
Main Bldg. of Bank of India,
3rd Floor, Hutatma Chowk,
Mahatma Gandhi Marg,

Mumbai – 400 01.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of his evaluated answer book (Paper VII) for the
Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Services Class III. The examination was conducted
by Maharashtra Service Commission. The Commission has denied the information.
The appeal was heard on 20.2.2009 (Video Conference).
This Commission has been receiving such applications. The Central Information
Commission in Appeal No. ICPB / A-2 / CIC / 2006 has concluded that supply of the
evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection
process. The case was identical. Ms. Treesa Irish, employed as a postman (post woman)
in Ernakulam. North Post Office, Kerala appeared for departmental examination on
24.4.2005 for promotion as LGO. She was not successful and applied for a photocopy of
her evaluated answer sheet. The Public Information Officer and the First Appellate
Authority denied the information and the order was finally confirmed by the Central
Information Commission.

parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been correctly denied. The
information held by the public authority in his fiduciary capacity is also exempt under
section 8(1) (e) and the information being personal having no relation to any public
interest is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (J) of the RTI Act. I therefore,
pass the following order
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1520/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum Hon. General Secretary

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Attested copy of presenting officers written say in response to appellant’s
application to Enquiry Officer for allowing him to cross examine PO in question answer
form.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that he was
not allowed to cross examine saying that it was not allowed in question answer form and
can be only in narration. The respondent did not have much to say.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. Information
has been defined as any information in material form. Thus, if the presenting officer has
placed on record his say, the appellant is entitled to have a copy of it.

I therefore pass the following order.
Order
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1926/02
Dr. Satishchandra B.Kumar

EMP 10/103, 1st Floor,
Evershine Millennium Paradise,
Thakur Village, Kandivali (East),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Principal
Registrar, University of Mumbai,

Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 17.6.2008 had sought the following
information:-
1) Kindly provide me with the certified copies of the recommendation /s of all
the four experts appointed to evaluate my research publications as reported
in your letter 27th May 2008, Ref.No. TAU/660/2008.
2) Please let me know as to what objective criteria and guidelines were
followed by the said experts in evaluating my research publications.
3) Please let me know:
a) As to on what basis were the said four experts appointed to evaluate my
research publications.
b) The names, qualifications and field of specializations in psychology of the
said four experts.
The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 17.7.2008 informed the
appellant that these information are confidential cannot be furnished. He also informed
him that the experts were senior most academicians possessing high qualification and
experience. The appellant was not satisfied and preferred the first appeal under section
19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The First Appellate Authority by his order
dated 19.9.2008 has virtually confirmed the Public Information Officer’s order. The

17.2.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has submitted that he
has not been given the information. The respondents have stated that the information
cannot be furnished because they are confidential.
by parties. My conclusion is that the information has been correctly denied. It would not
be desirable to disclosure the findings of the examiner because the information has been
given to the respondent in confidence. There does not seem to be any delay by the Public
Information Officer and so the question of taking penal action against him does not arise.
I am therefore, of the view that the case should be closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1899/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum The Treasurer

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
(3) Receipt books
(4) Ledger books /s
(5) Cash book / s

order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1960/02
Shri. Machhidra N. Karalkar

Hazarabai House, Room No.5,
Irla Society Road,
Vile Parle (W),
V/s
K /West Ward Office,
Andheri (W),
Public Information Officer cum MOH

Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information relating to various eating houses on Irla
Society Road, Mumbai. He has sought copies of licenses; report on use of compulsory
open space and action taken against those who violated the regulations.
Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer and First
The appeal was heard on 24.2.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The respondent in his
written submission has contended that the information the appellant he could deposit
necessary fee and collect the information. The appellant however informed the Public
Information Officer that his replies do not cover all the points. The respondent claims
that Public Information Officer’s replies covered all the points and the case should be
closed. Since the appellant was absent it could not be verified.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished. The Public
Information Officer’s letter dated 18.9.2008 (on record) shows hat the required
information has been furnished. In fact I would like to add that the information sought is
not very clear and the replies are adequate.

Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1933/02

C.I.T.U.Andheri Centre,
Bakhtawar Bldg.,
Andheri (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Chief Security & Vigilance Officer,
BEST Undertaking,
Best Bhawan,
Best Marg, P.O.Box No. 192,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 001. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Chief Security & Vigilance Officer,

BEST Undertaking,
Best Bhawan,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to visits of union leaders to
different depots of Best and meeting held in canteens. The appellant also sought
information regarding the rules according to which they were permitted.
Appellant was present but the respondent was absent. The appellant has
contended that the management has been allowing union leaders from BEST Kamgar
Union, BEST Kamgar Sena, BEST Bahujan Employees Union and BEST Parivartan
Kamagar Sangh to visit depot and have meeting where as his union has been refused
permission. He sought details of those visits but the same has not been furnished. The
respondent was absent so his views could not be ascertained. Security of the case papers
however reveal that the management has furnished the information.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished. I therefore,

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2125/02
Shri.R.P.Yajurvedi (Rao)
302 / A, Nav Asawari CHS Ltd.,
182, J.B.Nagar, Andheri (E),
V/s
Mumbai Area,
Maharashtra State,
Worli,

Mumbai Area,
Maharashtra State,
Worli,
Mumbai – 400 018.
GROUNDS
a) INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION Kalina, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai
b) Bombay College of Pharmacy : Kalina : Santacruz (E), Mumbai
c) Copy of the Yearly Returns filed with the Office of the Charity
Commissioner Maharashtra.
d) Copy of the Amendments, inclusions, exclusions intimated to Office of the
Charity Commissioner as mandated by law.
e) Financial sanctions if any obtained for Capital Expenditure by the said
Trusts or institutions for the Year 2006-07, 07-08 and 08-09 FY from
Office of the Charity Commissioner Maharashtra. Worli Office or other
authority.
f) Pls. provide date and time for inspection of file w.r.t. the above institutions
/ Trusts on mob. 9870351359

The respondent was apologetic for not furnishing the information earlier but had
brought the same at the time of hearing. It was handed over to the appellant during the
hearing. The case therefore is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1949/02
Shri. Nipun Mathkar

B-5, Jivdani Kripa Chawl,
Ramchandra Jadhav Wadi,
Vijay Nagar,
Near Saibaba Mandir,
Nalasopara (E), Dist. - Thane – 401 208. …..Appellant
V/s
State Central Library, Maharashtra State,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg, Nagar Bhawan,

Mumbai – 400 023.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to organisation and functions of
the State Central Library, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Nagar Bhavan, Mumbai. The
appellant wanted to know whether complaint box has been taken against those who stole
the books or did not return books.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that he is
not satisfied with the information furnished. The respondent has stated that they have
furnished whatever information was available with them. They have also volunteered
that the appellant can inspect documents and ask for information which would be
furnished. Taking into account the nature of information sought and the respondents
offer to facilitate inspection of document, I pass the following order.

I pass the following orders.
Order
Inspection to be allowed within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1756/02
Shri.Mahendra Janardan Chavan

85/2, Chalke Chawl, Tarwadi,
Swadeshi Mill,
Sion, Chunabhatti,
Mumbai – 400 022. …..Appellant
V/s
City & Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd.,
Corporation Register Office,
2nd Floor, Madam Cama Road,
Nariman Point,

Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 022.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information relating to City & Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra. The appellant has sought information regarding its
organisation functions, recruitment of staff, details of existing staff, arrangement made by
Cidco to access information and no. of illegal recruitment done and action taken against
those responsible.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant however refused to sign on
the ground that the Right to Information Act does not require him to sign his attendance.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. Respondents
also agreed to furnish the required information. They were apologetic about their
inability to comprehend the range and variety of information sought by the appellant. I
therefore pass the following orders.

Order

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1744/02
Appeal No.2009/1745/02

V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Asstt. Municipal Commissioner,
R /South Ward Office, 2nd Floor,
Near S.V.P. Swimming Pool,
M.G.Road No.2,
Kandivali (W),
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Engineer (B.F.)

Executive Engineer(B.P.),
nd
R /South Ward Office, 2 Floor,
M.G.Road No.2,
Kandivali (W),
Mumbai – 400 067.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information relating to Hotel Delicacy Pure Veg. and
Hotel Suruchi Pure Veg. The appellant had asked for certified copies of permission
granted for construction of boundary walls and if no permission was granted, the action
taken against owners.
The appellant did not turn up but has contended that he has not been furnished
information. The respondent in his written statement has stated that information has been
furnished and action against illegal portion taken and appellant informed.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1937/02
Shri. Dattatray Shivram Chavan

129 /6, Dhanshree – A,
Le. Dilip Gupte Road,
Mahim,
V/s
G / South Ward Office,
Harishchandra Yewale Marg,
Dadar (W),

Water Works,
Dadar (W),
Mumbai – 400 028.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant is a tenant in Dhanashree building, Dilip Gupte Road, Mahim. It
seems that water supply to the building was disconnected putting tenants to hardship. It
is understood that water charges in tenants’ occupied buildings are paid by the land-lord.
Tenants in turn pay to the landlord. Whenever landlords fail to pay the bill, MCGM
disconnects the supply. It goes without saying that the occupants are put to hardship.
The Commission has received many such applications which apparently seem to be
seeking information but basically are petitions for restoration of water supply connection.
appellant wanted this practice of disconnecting water supply stopped. This case is
different is one sense – the ownership of the building has under transfer and tenants
insisted that if the property is transferred in the name of the owner they would permit
upon him to pay the bill. The respondents reply was that transfer property is subject to
fulfilling conditions and submission of documents.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments I have come to
the Commission cannot pretend to be empowered to intervene. I therefore, close the
case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2141/02
Shri. Swapnil Kadam

510, Himalaya House,
79, Palton Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Deputy Chief Engineer
(Building Proposal) City,
“E” Ward Office, 3rd Floor,
10, S.K. Hafizuddin Marg,
Byculla, Mumbai – 400 008. …. Respondent

Byculla, Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the use of the 1st & 2nd floor
of New Akashganga Co-operative Housing Society. He wanted to know whether the
trust which is occupying the floors has obtained permission for change of user.
The appeal was heard on 26.3.2009
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that these
floors were occupied by Bhulabhai and Dhirajlal Desai memorial trust for carrying out
Educational Medical and relief of poverty, social and cultural activities. The trust is
using it for commercial purposes and it is necessary to know whether change of user has
been permitted.
The respondent contention is that some information has been furnished but files
relating to remaining information have not been traced.
The information sought is simple and it has to be furnished. It is not enough to say that
files are not available.
Order

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2140/02
Shri.Sanjay Anandrao Kalatre

8/13, Sayhadri Nagar,
Charkop,
Kandivali (W),
V/s
K.J.Somaiya College of Science & Commerce,
Vidyanagar, Vidyavihar,

Mumbai – 400 077.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding his application for
employment in K. J. Somaiya College of Science & Commerce.
not been furnished the information.
The respondent’s contention is that the application has not been considered
favourably as the same was received after the lapse of permissible time period as per the
guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra in this behalf. This information was
furnished by the Public Information Officer’s letter dated 23rd September, 2008.
The college has to go as per the guidelines issued by the Govt. The appellant was
advised to approach Govt.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2146/02
Shri. Pramod Rajaram Pawar

120/B/60, Rajgadh,
Mumbai Nagari Parivahan Project,
M.U.T.P. Tata Nagar,
Mankhurd,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Commissioner,
M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai,
Bandra – Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy.Registrar,

Co-operative Society, Mumbai,
M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Raigad Co-operative Housing
Society, Tata Nagar Road, Mankhurd, Mumbai. He had asked audit report for the period
ending March 2006, 2007 and 2008, no. shops in the building, no. of residents who have
been issued share certificate and accounts maintained by the Chief Promoter for
maintenance of the building.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that he
received incomplete information. He has also stated that the Public Information Officer’s
reply to him was that remaining information was available at the society level.
The respondent’s contention is that he has given the information which was
available at his level. In his detailed written submission he has given pointwise
information. He also assured that he would help the appellant in securing information
from the society.

parties it is revealed that the society consists of project affected people (MUTP) who
have been rehabilitated as per the policy. These are a large no. of such societies of
PAP’s. These nascent societies are yet to set their feet firmly. The Public Information
Officer has furnished the available information. Accounts of expenditure prior to
formation of the society will have to be obtained from the society. The Public
Information Officer should help the appellant. I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1823/02
Shri. Shirish T. Engineer

111, Yasho Mandir,
Sane Guruji Marg,
Tardeo,
V/s
Office of the ‘D’ Ward,
Nana Chowk,
Grant Road (W),

Building Proposal, City,
Office of the “E” Ward,
Sankhali Street,
Byculla, Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding complaint for repair of WC
Pipe at Bhatt Chawl, ‘D’ ward, Mumbai.
Appellate Authority, the appellant has filed the second appeal. The appeal was heard on
26.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present. The respondent
has submitted a copy the appellant letter dated 6.3.2009 that the WC pipe has been
repaired. He has enclosed a photo of the repaired pipe.
In the light of this, the case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1878/02
Shri.Devendra M. Shah
132 / D, 13, Bhagatwadi,
Bhuleshwar, Mumbai – 400 002. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. City Engineer,
M.B.R. & R. Board, South,
MHADA,
Rajani Mahal, Tardeo Road,
DI, DII, MHADA,

MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,
Mumbai – 400 034.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to building no. 250 known as
Hendre Building, V.P.Road, Mumbai.
the appeal was heard on 26.3.2009.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has stated during the
hearing that the required information has been furnished to him and nothing needs to be
done.
In view of this the case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1879/02
V/s
MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,

MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,
Mumbai – 400 034.
GROUNDS
The appellant has stated that he has received all the required information and
nothing needs to be done. It is therefore decided to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2137/02
Smt. Sulochana C. Bane

Vishwakiran Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.,
31/16, 3rd Floor,
Shardadevi Road,
Bandra (E),
V/s
Mumbai Housing and Development Authority,
Grihnirman Bhavan, 3rd Floor,
Bandra (E),

Dahisar (E.W.S.), Saphalya Co-op. Hsg. Socty. Ltd.,
Chawl No. 17, Room No. 97,
M.H.B.Colony,
S.N.Dube Road,
Dahisar, Chunabhatti (E),
Mumbai – 400 068.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Saphalya C.H.S. Dahisar (E),
Mumbai. The appellant also disputes the outstanding shown against her.
contended that no information has been furnished. She wanted a copy of the minutes of
the meeting held on 5.6.2006 and 18.6.2006 but refused on the ground that she was a
defaulter although no action under section 101 of the MCS Act was initiated against her.
The respondent was absent and therefore it is presumed that he has nothing to say.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant basically wants the dispute to be
resolved. The appellant have shown to me the original bill for Rs. 612/- which the
society denies having received although the appellant stated that there is an endorsement
on the bill itself. The society has shown outstanding of Rs. 2541/-. There is no way the
Commission can intervene. I am constrained to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 25.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1841/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum The treasurer

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
1) Statement of Accounts
2) Statement of income & expenditure
3) Receipt book/s
4) Ledger book/s
5) Cash book/s
6) Credit voucher’s file/s
7) Debit voucher file/s
8) Pass book/s files or Statements of Bank A/cs
9) Fixed deposit certificates all for financial year ending 31st March, 2008.
Appellate has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on
9.2.2009.
not been furnished the information despite repeated requests.
The respondent’s contention is that the trust is exempted from the Right to

Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Information on point no. 122 to be furnished by

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2128/02
Shri. H.S.Ghadge
Adhikshak (Bhandar),
Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari,
V/s
Maharashtra Chitrapat Rangbhumi ani
Sanskritik Vikas Mahamandal Maryadit,
Film City,
Goregaon (E),
Public Information Officer cum Finance Consultant & Chief Account Officer
Film City,
Goregaon (E),
Mumbai – 400 065.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of his pay revision order according to the 5th Pay
Commission. The information was furnished to him. All documents were also shown to
him.
Appellant and respondents were present. Appellant has contended that his pay
has been wrongly fixed. It seems that his request for the remaining information was
incidental.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant was heading the administration
at the time fixing his pay. In any case his request pending and decision will be
communicated to him.
parties I have come to the conclusion that available information has been furnished. The
issue of fixation pay cannot be sorted by the Commission. The appellant has already
taken it up and the same should be decided at the appropriate level. I close the case.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2132/02
Shri. Pravin M. Dali
A – 603, Mauli Co-op. Hsg. Socty.,
Near Municipal School,
Mithanagar,
Goregaon (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Secretary,
Energy Department,
Mantralaya,
Public Information Officer cum Under Secretary / Chief Engineer (Electrical)

Energy Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
This appeal has been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act,
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the position of recovery of
electric duty and tax on sale of electricity amounting to Rs.99.25 crores between 2001 to
2008.
The appellant did not turn up. The appellant has contended that he has not been
given information on such a vital and critical issue. The respondent’s contention is that
the information sought pertains to Accountant General’s audit para. The information has
been sent to the Public Accounts Committee of the legislature. The respondent has stated
that disclosure at this stage may lead to breach of Parliamentary Privilege. The same has
been communicated by to the appellant by letter dated 18.12.2008.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments by parties I
have come to the conclusion that information has been rightly denied as disclosure may
lead to breach of privilege.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2167/02
V/s

Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
occupying a tenement which belonged to one Mr. R.K.Pathak. Mr. R.K.Pathak’s father’s
contended that he has already given the information to the appellant by his letter dated
5.4.2008. The respondent’s contention is that the information given was wrong because
the name given was that of the earlier owner.
solution unless the appellant inspects the whole file and asks for whatever suits him.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2133/02
Shri.M. Mohandas Roy

Bldg. No. 21 – B,
Block No. 1097 / 2nd Floor,
M.H.B. Colony,
Mahim (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Superintendent (City)
State Excise,
Office of Superintendent (City),
Ground Floor, Old Custom House,
S.B.Road,

State Excise,
S.B.Road,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Mazgaon Dock Restaurant
and Bar – provisions under which licensees are made to deposit National Saving
Certificates, provisions under which licenses are issued etc.
not been furnished the required information. He has also requested the Commission to
take action against the Public Information Officer for not furnishing the information.
The respondent’s contention is that the information sought was not clear to them
whether it was about Mazgaon Dock Restaurant & Bar or general. This mixing of the
two caused delay. They have however sent the information by speed post and also
brought a copy.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has not been furnished in time.
If points are not clear, the appellant could be asked to clarify. These can be no
justification for delay. Since the information has already been sent I pass the following
order.
Order
The Public Information Officer to show cause why he should not be penalised @
Rs.250/- per day for not furnishing the information. His explanation to reach the
Commission within 3 weeks.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2170/02
Shri. Gordhandas K. Vangani

C/o. Vanganey International,
7 /1, Hind Service Industrial Premises Co-op. Socty. Ltd.,
Veer Savarkar Marg, Cadel Road,
V/s
(Reconstruction)
Bombay Building Repair and Reconstruction Board,
Sonawala Bldg.,
Shinde Wadi,
Dadar (E),

RU -1, Bombay Housing Area,
Sonawala Bldg.,
Shinde Wadi,
Dadar (E),
Mumbai – 400 014.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certified copies of all documents relating to
redevelopment of property bearing CS No. 253 building no. 15-15A Bhorbat Lane,
building known as Vangani Chambers Girgaum, “D” Ward, Mumbai.
not been furnished the information he required.
The respondent’s contention is that the whole file was shown to him and he has
obtained copies of whatever he wanted.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant does admit having received
certain information but feels that the papers required by him are not there. RTI Act
ensures furnishing of available and non existent information cannot be furnished. The
appellant however was offered one more inspection by the respondent and he accepted
the offer. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The appellant will carry out the inspection and respondent
shall furnished certified copies of selected documents.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2172/02
Shri. Abdul Razak Mohammed Suleman

Flat No. 1901, 19th Floor,
Rehmani Tower, Madanpura,
7/9/11, Mohammed Umer Rajjab Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Asstt. Registrar,
Co-op. Societies,
“E” South Ward, Malhotra House,
6th Floor, Opp. G.P.O.,
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Registrar,

Co-op. Societies,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
1) I would like to know whether the said Rehmani Tower Co-op. Hsg. Soc.
Ltd. is registered in your department and the above said registration number
given by the office bearer of the said society is true or correct.
2) Names of the office bearer with their designation of the said society,
mentioned in your record.
3) Have the office bearers of the said society had submitted complete Audit /
Account of the Rehmani Tower CHS. Ltd., If yes, then give me the certified
true copy of the same and if no then why? Why they did not submit the
required audit / account report to you.
4) There has flat size of 225 Sq. Ft. 360 Sq. Ft. & 275 Sq. Ft. and Office
bearers of the said society is charging @ Rs. 800.00, 1100.00 and 900.00
respectively.
5) Now they are desirous to increase my maintenance of area 225 Sq. Ft. from
800.00 to 1800.00 on which Ground and have they right to increase the
maintenance directly more than double.
6) Have they opened the required Bank Account for keeping the record of the
said society?
7) Have they submitted the required record of income and expenditure in your
office.
Appellant has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on
31.3.2009.
The appellant has contended that he was not satisfied with the information
furnished to him. He has been informed that most of the information are with the society.
The respondent’s contention is that whatever information was available with him
has been furnished. He also informed the Commission that he has gone beyond the
information sought and has appointed an administrator according to the Maharashtra
Co-operative Society Act 1960. He also informed that an Administrative Committee in
construction with the appellant is going to be set and he will also ask the administrator to
get the accounts audited. The appellant also admitted that these steps have been taken.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2171/02
Shri. Shivnarayan R. Rajbhar

Ramkhilawan Rajbhar Chawl,
Marol Naka, A.K.Road,
Andheri (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Addl. Collector &
Competent Authority,
7th Floor, Administrative Bldg.
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Collector (ENG) &

Grihnirman Bhavan,
Kala Nagar,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to structure no.95 and 95 A,
Ramkhilavan chawl, Krishna Nagar, Marol Naka, A.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. The
appellant has pointed out both these huts have been shown as projected affected person.
The appellant has sought copies of documents.
The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present. The appellant has
contended that he has not been given the information he had asked for. The respondent’s
contention is that papers relating to the issue are not available. He has however shown to
me the list of PAPs where Mr.John’s name has been shown twice against hut no.95 and
95 A.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the Public Information Officer has to make all
efforts to trace the underlying papers. It becomes more important when two huts have
been shown against the name of one person. The electricity bill shown by the Public
Information Officer does not even bear the hut no. It is very important to know what

documents were submitted at the time of survey. If the PAP has been given two units in
the rehabilitation scheme it becomes more serious.
Order

within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2165/02
Shri.Chandrakant Amritlal Merchant

J.M. Rane Building & Khambata Pathan Chawl,
153-E, Mosses Road,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Chief Engineer (North)
Mumbai Building Repair & Reconstruction and Redevelopment Authority,
Grihnirman Bhavan,
Kalanagar,
Bandra (E),

“D” Ward,
Mumbai Building Repair & Redevelopment Authority,
Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to repair, reconstruction and
redevelopment of the Lower Parel Division, Mumbai.
not been furnished the information he had asked for. The respondent’s contention is that
whatever information was available has been furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished. The
Public Information Officer by his letter dated 12.9.2008 has given pointwise replies. The
appellant reason for not being satisfied was not clear to the Commission. He was advised
to inspect the relevant files if he so desires.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2147/02
Shri. Vishwanath Ramchandra Desai

601, 6th Floor, Shri. Sainath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,
Anandnagar, Vakola,
Vakola Police Station Road,
Santacruz (E),
V/s
Co-op. Societies, H.E. Ward,
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum District Dy. Registrar,

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 055.
GROUNDS
relating to registration of Shri. Sainath Co-operative Housing Society, Anand Nagar,
Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 055. He had sought true copies of documents submitted at
the time of registration of the society.
The Public Information Officer informed the appellant that the information sought
was available with the society and the same can be obtained from there.
Not satisfied the reply from the Public Information Officer the appellant filed the
first appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority ordered
that the information be furnished. The appellant is not satisfied.
Hence this appeal before the Commission.
The appeal was heard on 26.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the
respondent was present. The appellant has sought adjournment but the same is not
granted in view of the simplicity of the information sought.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. The Public
Information in this case is the holder of the required information and there is no way he
can shift the burden to the society. The information should be sent by post and free of
cost.
Order

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1853/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to Maharashtra
College, Mumbai.
(2) Account Statement of Income & Expenditure
(3) Ledger books /s
(4) Cash book / s
(5) Credit Voucher
(6) Debit Voucher Files
(7) Bank’s Pass book/s or Statement of banks a/c’s
relevance like, bank accounts, credit /debit vouchers etc. I am therefore of the view that

order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2169/02
Shri. Govind Sayaji Salvi

B-25, Chaturth Shreni Vasahat,
Mumbai Vidyapith (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Kulsachiv
Mumbai Vidyapith,
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Kulsachiv

General Administration Department,
Mumbai Vidyapith,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to allotment of staff quarters to
employees of the university. The appellant had sought information on 22 points.
not been given the information required by him. The respondent did not have any
credible answer. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
Information to be furnished within 30 days. Public Information Officer to show

within 30 days. Public Information Officer to show cause why action under section 20 of
the RTI Act 2005 should not be taken against him. His explanation to reach the
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2154/02
Shri. D.B. Ambade

Bldg. No. 19, Plot No. 72,
M.S.E.B. Staff Quarters,
Bandra Reclemation,
Bandra (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum General Manager
Maharashtra State Electricity Board Co.Ltd.,
Prakashgad, 4th Floor,
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Manager

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to transfer policy, transfer on
administrative ground, request and promotion.
The appellant has sought information on 7 points. Records do not reveal any
order passed by the Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority. Under
the circumstances I pass the following order.
Order
Information to be furnished within 30 days failing which action under section 20

of the RTI Act 2005 will be initiated against the Public Information Officer.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2161/02
Shri. Arjunlal M.Chabria

Belle Vista, Flat No. 15,
3rd Floor, Opp. Lake & L.I.C. Office,
S.V.Road,
Bandra, Mumbai – 400 050. .… Appellant
V/s
K /West, Municipal Ward Office,
Andheri (W),
2nd Floor, Paliram Path,
Opp. Best Station,

Building & Factory,
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information regarding the canteen in the
compound of Tahsildar Andheri, Mumbai.
1) It is a fact that there is a canteen in the compound of Tehsildar,
Dadabhoy Naoroji Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2) Please supply me the copy of the documents submitted by the owner
of the canteen for the permission and N.O.C. for the said canteen.
3) Whether the permission has been given to the said canteen or
whether the authorisation is given by your Department, then please
supply me the copy of the permission of the N.O.C. or the
Authorisation of the said canteen.
4) Please supply me the copy of the approved plan of the said canteen
in the compound of Tehsildar.

5) If no permission / authorisation and no approved plan is there in
respect of the said canteen, then why action is not taken under
section 351 B.M.C.Act.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant did not turn up but the
respondent was present. The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the
information despite the First Appellate Authority direction to do so within 10 days.
The respondent’s contention is that the canteen is located in the compound of
Tahsildar and so information may be collected from him.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information as directed by the First Appellate
Authority should be furnished. The Public Information Officer should write to the
Tahsildar, Andheri collect the information and furnish to the appellant.
1)
Order

within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2162/02

S.V.Road,
V/s
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,

Building & Factory,
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to the Xerox stall in
the compound of Tahsildar, Andheri, Mumbai and documents submitted by the owner for
authorisation of the Xerox stall.
1. Is it a fact that there is a Xerox stall in the compound of Tahsildar,
Dadabhoy Naroji road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2. Please supply me the copy of the documents submitted by the owner of the
Xerox stall for the permission and N.O.C. for the said Xerox stall.
3. Whether the permission has been given to the said stall or whether the
authorization is given by your Department, then please supply me the copy
of the permission of the N.O.C. or authorization of the said Xerox stall.
4. Please supply me the copy of the Approved plan of the said Xerox stall in
the compound of Tahsildar.
5. If no permission / authorization and no approved plan is there in respect of
the said stall, then why action is not taken under section 351, BM.C.Act.
contended that he has not been furnished the required information. The respondent’s
contention is that the stall lies in the compound of Tahsildar, Andheri and the information
may be sought from there. The First Appellate Authority however directed the Public
Information Officer to furnish correct reply within 10 days.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the Public Information Officer should write to
the Tahsildar, Andheri whether the stall has required authorisation and inform the
appellant accordingly.
Order

within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2138/02
Appeal No.2009/2139/02
Shri. S.W. Kochikar

7 ‘Om Satlaj Irla,
Vile Parle (W),
V/s
Engineering Services and Projects,
5th Floor Annex Bldg.,
Mahapalika Road,
Public Information Officer cum City Engineer,

Mahapalika Road,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
These appeals have been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information
Act 2005. The appellant had copies of documents reports with relevant file and whether
the court order was perused before dismissal order was issued.
not been given the information despite repeated requests. He has stated that he had
inspected the documents but did not get the required information. The respondent’s
contention is that the appellant was offered inspection of documents and furnished
documents also.
parties, it is revealed that the appellant had sought the same information through so many
applications / appeals. One of such appeals was decided by this Commission and order
dated 31.7.2008 was issued. It was ordered that the required information should be
furnished within 30 days. The appellant is a dismissed employee of the MCGM. He may

be in need of this information for his defence. Nobody is permitted to ask the purpose
for which the information is sought. Seeing the way in which the case was handled in the
past and is being handled now I have come to the conclusion that there is reluctance on
the part of the Public Information Officer to furnish the information. Although I had
advised earlier that the game of shifting responsibilities must stop and information
furnished, it does not seem to have any impact. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order

within 15 days. The Public Information Officer to show cause why he should be fined @
Rs. 250/- per day under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2126/02
Shri. Vijay Raju Rathod

Room No. 36/37,
Government College,
Students Hostel,
Sea Road, Churchgate,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Joint Director,
Higher Education, Mumbai Division, Mumbai,
Elphiston Technical College Campus,
3, Mahapalika Marg,

3, Mahapalika Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
1) Copies of notes, mark list seniority list and select list of candidates
interviewed on 14.1.2004 for appointment as peon
2) Roster for appointment as peon from VJNT
3) Copies of orders promoting Shri.Rajendra Rajput, Smt. Yamuna Nagargoje
and Shri. Hiraman Jagtap
4) Name of the administrative officers who looked after administration from
2004.
Appellate and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that he has
not been given the most important information – The Seniority list he has stated that the
seniority list which formed the basis for promotion from peon to clerk is faulty as he has
been shown junior and hence promoted late.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant has been given all the
information except the seniority list prepared after the interview. The list which was

considered at the time of promotion was based on the date of joining. So the persons who
have been promoted before him are above him according to date of joining.
parties it is revealed that the most crucial point is what should form the basis of
seniority - date of joining or the position in the list prepared after the interview. It is also
important to know that any seniority list is not finalised unless objections and suggestions
are invited. It is not understood how the appellant feels that he was senior to those
promoted before him. If he has the list, he could confront the authority concerned. In
any case his case for deemed promotion is pending. Copies of available information have
been given. The case is closed at our end.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1985/02
Smt. M.M. Warkhandkar

4 / 94, Sahjivan, Ganesh Nagar,
V/s
Engineering Service & Project,
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Chief Officer,

(Enquiry) Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding Shri. Vijay Maruti Jakhani (MLJO)
Solid Waste Management, MCGM. The appellant had asked for information whether some
action was taken against him for indulging into the business of money lending & also
information available with MCGM regarding court cases in this regard. Not satisfied with
2.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant stated that information
has been denied on the ground that the information sought does not fit into the definition
and it is in the form of question. The respondent did not have anything to add. I do not
agree with the findings Answers to hypothetical questions are not expected. Information
which is available in material form has to furnished.
I therefore do not agree with the findings. I pass the following order.

Order
The appeal is allowed and order of the First Appellate Authority is set aside.
The available information relating to enquiry against Shri. Jakhani should be furnished.
This should be done within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1989/02
Bakhtawar Bldg.,
V/s
Best Undertaking,
Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,

Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 031.
GROUNDS
payment of overtime from 1.11.2008 to employees working at Oshiwara Bus Depot.
His application / first appeal was rejected because he had asked for future information
where as the RTI Act ensures furnishing of available information. The appellant has
come in second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant submitted that it was a slip of pen
on his part and what he wanted was information from November, 2007 to July 2008. The
respondents were agreeable to furnish the information.

Order
The appeal is allowed. Respondent to furnish necessary information within 30
days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1988/02

Bakhtawar Bldg.,
V/s
Best Undertaking,
Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,

Wadala Bus Depot,
Wadala,
Mumbai – 400 031.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding plying of air conditioned bus on
route no. 415. He had also asked information on 6 other related points. The appellant
was not satisfied with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First
Appellate Authority and hence this appeal. The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. The
appellant has stated that the information given was not complete. Respondents submitted
that they have given all the required information. They have also made written
submission. I have gone through the case papers and also detailed submission made by
the respondent. The information furnished is elaborate and exhaustive. I therefore, come
to the conclusion that information has been furnished. I pass the following order.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1984/02
Shri. Nitin M. Sarvaiya

51 / 1119 Aazad Nagar 3,
Vira Desai Road,
Andheri (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Estate Manager II,

Bandra (East),
Public Information Officer cum Estate Manager II,

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 29.4.2009 had sought information relating
to building no. 51, Veera Desai Road, Azad Nagar, Andheri. The Public Information
Officer by his reply dated 22.5.2009 furnished the required information. The appellant
was not satisfied and preferred the first appeal under section 19 (1) of the Right to
Information Act 2005. There is nothing on record to show that the First Appellate
Authority has passed any order. Hence this appeal.
appellant has alleged that the information was incomplete and he never received the
copies mentioned in Public Information Officer’s letter dated 22.5.2009 (point no. 2).
The respondent showed willingness to furnish the information again. Following order is
passed.

Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Public Information Officer to send a copy of the
letter as mentioned in para 2 of his reply dated 22.5.2008.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1983/a/02
Shri. Noorul Huda Shamsuddoha

U.T.No.553, Separate Barrack,
Ratnagiri Special Prison,
Ratnagiri,
M.S. 415612. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dean

K.E.M. Hospital,
Parel,
Public Information Officer cum Dean

K.E.M. Hospital,
Parel,
Mumbai – 400 012.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought copies of his medical report prepared at K.E.M.
Hospital, Mumbai. The Public Information Officer, K.E.M. Hospital sent the information
but the appellant was not satisfied. He preferred the first appeal under section 19 (1) of
the RTI Act 2005. The appellant says no response has been received from the First
Appellate Authority and hence this appeal.
The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The respondent
was present. It has been submitted by him that the appellant was brought to the hospital
by police. He was examined like any other patient and reports / copies have been sent to
him at his Arthur Jail address. Appellant does admit having received 3 reports but says
he should have been given 12-15 reports. The respondent told the Commission that
whatever papers were available have been furnished. He also stated that the hospital
treats everyone as a patient and the question of furnishing some reports and retaining
some does not arise. In fact the appellant is also not sure and have not indicated specific

reports which have not been given to him. In the light of the above discussion, I
conclude that the information has been furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1986/02
Shri. Subhash A. Pawar .… Appellant

V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Prabhari Adhishtata …. Respondent

Public Information Officer cum Prabhari Adhishtata

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had asked for copies abstract of attendance register of students,
copies of correspondence made by the administrative office, list of students who were
expelled from the college and copies of letters sent to students as per law. The
information was sought for the year 2003-2004 till the applicant’s application for
information. The information was furnished but not in time. This is the main reason of
appeal.
The appeal was heard on 2.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. As
stated earlier, the main contention of the appellant is that information was submitted late.
The respondent has pleaded that lack of staff, reluctance on the part of some of the staff
members and nature of the information have contributed for the delay. It is admitted that
the furnishing of information has been delayed. I pass the following order.

Order
The appeal is allowed. The Public Information Officer to explain why action
should not be initiated under section 20 of the Right to Information Act for not furnishing
information in time. The explanation should come to the Commission within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1923/02

V/s

Opp. G.P.O., Fort,

Mumbai – 400 064.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant has sought the following information:-
6. Certified legible True Copies of very first and last paid Property Tax Bills
and Water Bills to Mumbai Municipal Corporation by Atlanta Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd.
7. Certified legible True Copy of very first of the Old Registered Bye-Laws
in the year 1987-88 of the Society.
8. Legible Certified True Copy of City Survey Plan, Property Card and
Occupation Certificate of Atlanta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.
9. List of Managing Committee Members Elected and co-opted from time to
time till date.
10. Certified True Copies of Address and Telephone Numbers of Contractors,
Consultants, Office Managers and Staff appointed by Atlanta Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd, since 2003 till date.
Appellate Authority, the appellant has come in second appeal before the Commission.

information sought by the appellant is available at the Society’s level. The Maharashtra
Co-operative Societies Act 1960 gives enough powers to the District Deputy Registrar to
force societies to meet legitimate demands of members. The issues whether Societies
come under the RTI Act has not been finally decided. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in
its judgment in writ petition no. 16901 / 2006 (GM RES) has held that solely on the basis
of supervision and control by the Registrar of Societies, a society cannot be termed as
public authority. So as to include a Society, within the definition of the term ‘Public
Authority’ it should fulfill the conditions stipulated in such clause (d) of clause (b) of
section 2 of the RTI Act. We at the Commission however have devised a via media the
information which is held by the office of the Deputy Registrar or should have been held
by him can be accessed. The information sought by the appellant obviously does not fit
into the category. Property tax, addresses and telephone no. of members, occupation
certificate etc. The appellant however can approach the Deputy Registrar under the
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1992/02
Shri. Satish Ramchandra Rane

Peru Chawl, 1st Floor, Room No. 27,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Chief Fire Officer,
Public Information Officer cum Chief Fire Officer,

Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding inquiries against Shri. Devidas
Madhukar Lokhande, Fire Service of MCGM. Not satisfied with responses from the
Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant filed the
second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 2.3.2009.
The appellant did not turn up. The respondent was present. He has submitted a copy of
the letter dated 13.8.2008. The letter is from the Asstt. Public Information Officer and
addressed to the appellant. It has given details of enquiries and punishment awarded to
Mr. Lokhande. In view of this, I conclude that information has been furnished and the
case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1987/02

V/s


Head Office, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
Appellant and respondent were present. The respondents have conducted an enquiry into
the allegations made by the appellant. They have obtained Municipal Commissioner’s
order and the same has been communicated. A copy of the report was also furnished to
him. The appellant is still not satisfied and fears that MCGM may remove him at will.
He wants to be assured that his structure will remain protected. The formal allotment
letter has been issued to him. He has also pointed that enquiry officer has remarked that
his structure is illegal and should be removed.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2011/02
Shri. Arun Ganpat Bhowar

A / 603, Sai Aashih,
Near Jankalyan Bank,
Station Road, Vikroli,
V/s

Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra (E),

Arun Niwara Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
Bldg. No. 167, Kannamwar Nagar No. 1,
Vikroli (E),
Mumbai – 400 083.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information from Arun Niwas Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd., Kannamwar Nagar, Vikroli. There is nothing on record to show
that any information was passed on to the appellant. The appellant approached the First
Appellate Authority but no order seems to have been passed. The appeal was heard on
4.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were present.
The appellant had approached the society under section 6(1) of the Right to
Information Act. He preferred first appeal before the Deputy Registrar. He has
approached the Commission in the second appeal. The society has not been designated
as Public Information Authority. Then the first appeal and again the second appeal are
not in order and hence not tenable. Since the first application under RTI was presented to
society which has not been designated as Public Information Authority by the competent
authority, the question of second appeal does not arise. I therefore, pass the following
order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2009/02
Shri. Bhushan Bhagwandas Ghodi (Patel)

Bhagwandas House, C/16, Chincholi Bandar Road,
Malad (West),
V/s


GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had wanted to know whether any redevelopment scheme on his
property CTS 1061, Part 1 to 22 Survey No. 448 / 2, CTS No.1060 part 1 to 13 Survey
no. 448/3, CTS 1135 Survey No. 440 Part I has been sanctioned. He was not satisfied
with responses from the Public Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority and
hence this appeal. The appeal was heard on 4.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up.
The respondent was present. He has stated that no scheme has been sanctioned on those
CTS / SN as mentioned by the appellant. It is not enough to inform the Commission, the
appellant must be informed. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Public Information Officer to furnish information within
30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2006/02

59, Ambedkar Sadan,
Curry Road,
V/s
Public Information Officer Senior Inspector Licenses

License Department,
394 Section,
Mumbai – 400 070.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had asked for copies of documents submitted by the management of
Sai Enterprises for obtaining license under section 394 of BMC Act. Not satisfied with
appellant has preferred this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard
on 4.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has stated that he
has not been given complete information. The respondent stated that they granted license
in 2002 and necessary copies have been provided to the appellant. The appellant
however has pointed out that the owners of Sai Enterprises in their application for license
under section 394 of the BMC Act have mentioned that they were doing business at the
premises since 1991. The respondent’s response was that they are having information
and related papers from 2002 although Sai Enterprises might be running business
unauthorisedly. They have stated that they have no papers / documents of 1991.
by parties. The fact that applicant mentioned that he was doing business since 1991 does
not make it necessary that he must have applied for license. The license department will
have documents only when someone approaches them for a license. The appellant’s
contention that because the applicant claims to be doing business since 1991 and
therefore the license department must be having related papers is not correct. If papers
from 2002 have been furnished, I see no reason to deny papers of 1991. I accept
respondent’s contention. In the light of above discussion I come to the conclusion that
available information has been furnished. I decide to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2003/02

59, Ambedkar Sadan,
Curry Road,
V/s

“L” Ward,
Kurla, Mumbai – 400 070. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Engineer

Building & Factory,
“L” Ward,
Kurla, Mumbai – 400 070.
GROUNDS
2005. Shri. Shekhar Kashinath Kapure had sought information whether permit under
section 390 of the BMC Act has been given to M/s. Sai Enterprises. The Asstt.
Commissioner by his order dated 30.8.2008 informed him permit under section 390 has
not been given to Sai Enterprises. The appellant however has quoted your report saying
that the permit was shown to you during your inspection. This to be clarified. It is
therefore, requested that kindly attend this office on 30.4.2009 at 4.00 p.m. along with
relevant papers. Failure to appear may lead to issuance summons under the Right to
Information Act.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 04.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2015/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information from Salsette Catholic Co-operative
Housing Society. The Deputy Registrar Co-operative Society, H /West, Mumbai passed
an order under, section 7(92) (A) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960.
The appellant has sought information regarding its compliance. He was not satisfied with
responses from the Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority and hence
this appeal. These appeals were heard on 4.3.2009. Appellant and respondent were
present. The appellant has stated that since the Deputy Registrar has passed an order in
his favour, he should know the status of compliance. He was also emphatic that the First
Appellate Authority also directed to furnish the information.
parties. I have come to the conclusion that information must be provided. I therefore,

Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2012/02
Smt. Leena Rao

1403, Cascade – I, Kulupwadi,
Borivali (East),
V/s

Fort Campus,

Fort Campus,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had asked for a copy of the list of examiners in order of seniority in
the subject of Chemistry for M.Sc. (Organic) and B.Sc. (Chemistry) sent by SIES College
of Arts, Science and Commerce, Sion (West), Mumbai. The appellant has been denied
the information because it was treated as confidential. Hence this appeal. The appeal
was heard on 4.3.2009. The appellant was present. Respondents were absent. The main
point in the appeal is whether the information sought can be treated as confidential. The
reference to section 8(d) is not relevant. Everything that we do not want others to know
is marked confidential. The regime of Right to Information has changed all that. In this
case the college has sent list of persons who can be considered for examinership.
Nobody is asking the list which the university has finalised. The appellant is asking for
the list which her college has sent. I see no confidentiality in it. The appellant has to get
it. I pass the following order.

Order
The Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought by the appellant
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2018/02
Shri. Vijay Jaiswal,

35, Kanta Niwas, D.J.Road,
Vile Parle (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum City Survey Officer,

S.V.Road,
Motor Garage Camp,
Santacruz,
Public Information Officer cum The Sr. State Information Officer,

S.V.Road,
Motor Garage Camp,
Santacruz,
Mumbai – 400 054.
GROUNDS
2005. The hearing was fixed on 5.3.2009. The appellant however has submitted his
application stating therein that he wanted to withdraw his appeal. The request is granted.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1237/02
Shri. Rajendra Panditrao Mali

C – 3, Bachat Sarita Building,
Civil Hudco, Tarakpur,
Tal. Dist. – Ahmednagar. . … Appellant
V/s
Public Information Officer Dy. Secretary,

Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certain information from the Maharashtra Public Service
Commission. The information has been denied on the ground that the Anti Corruption
Bureau is investigating the case. The appellant has filed appeal against these orders. The
appeal was fixed for hearing on 2.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The respondent
was present. I have gone through the case papers. The First Appellate Authority has
passed a reasoned order. It is a fact that the ACB us still investigating the case. The
request has been rightly denied. There is no need to interfere with the order of the First
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 05.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2030/02
Bandra (W),
V/s
Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information regarding his case – Leslie Almeida V/s
Salsette Catholic Co-operative Society. Not satisfied with responses from the Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has in 2nd appeal
were present. I have gone through the case papers and also considered the arguments
advanced by parties. The information sought has to be provided. I therefore, pass the
following order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2031/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
case file Leslie Almeida V/s Salsette Catholic Co-operative Society. He also wanted to
know what action has been taken against the society and if no action has been taken,
reasons for not taking action. Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information
Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the appellant has preferred this second appeal
were present. The appellant has stated that despite order from the First Appellate
Authority, no information has been received by him. The respondent did not have much
to say. After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by
parties. I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. I therefore,

Order
The appeal is allowed. Public Information Officer to furnish necessary
information within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1924/02

V/s

Opp. G.P.O., Fort,

Mumbai – 400 064.
GROUNDS
1) Required Certificate True Copy of Resolution Passed in the
Annual General Meeting of Atlanta Co-operative Housing Ltd.,
held on 14th August 2005.
2) How much amount has been spent on Major Repairs since April
2004 till date and how much amount has been collected from each
of Member on Sq. Ft. basis, furnish detail along with certified True
abstract of the up to date bills of the contractors involved in the
Major Repairs of the Society Buildings?
3) Whether Permission for Major Repairs has been obtained from
Mumbai Municipal Corporation through concerned department?, if
yes please furnish me the Certified True Copy of the Application
made by the License Structural Engineer appointed by the Society,
also Certified True Copy of the Permission granted by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation “P” Ward, Mumbai For allowing you for
Major Repairs.

4) Whether Buildings of Atlanta Co-operative Housing Society Ltd.,
areas per BMC Approved Plans i.e. Structural, Elevation, Room
Layout Open Space around the Buildings, Common area, Garden
recreation, Common Terraces on all levels of the Society
Buildings?
5) Whether Society Land is lease hold or Free hold? Please give
clarifications with concerned documents (Certified True, signed
and sealed by Hon. Secretary of the society).
Appellate Authority, he has preferred second appeal before the Commission. The appeal
was heard on 17.2.2009. Appellant and respondents were present. It is seen from case
papers that the appellant sought information from the society by his letter dated 3.7.2008.
The appellant says that he received a reply through society’s advocate saying that
societies are not covered under RTI Act 2005. The appellant filed the first appeal under
section 19(1) of the RTI Act. It seems that the First Appellate Authority has not passed
any order. The appellant has requested for penal action against him. The issue whether
cooperative societies come under the RTI Act or not has not been finally settled. The
Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in its judgment in writ petition no. 16901 / 2006
(GM RES) has held that solely on the basis of supervision and control by the Registrar of
Societies, a society cannot be termed as public authority. So as to include a Society ,
within the definition of the term ‘Public Authority’ it should fulfill the conditions
stipulated in sub clause (d) of clause (b) of section 2 of the RTI Act. We at the
Commission, however, have devised a via media – the information which is held by the
office of the Deputy Registrar or should have been held by him can be accessed. The
information sought by the appellant obviously does not fit into the category. Property
tax, addresses and telephone no. of members, occupation certificate etc. are available at
society’s level. The appellant however can approach the Deputy Registrar under the
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 06.03.2009.
Appeal No.2009/2039/02
Shri.Nasir M.Shaikh
H – 145, Rafi Nagar, Shivaji Nagar,
Gowandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant
V/s

Office of the M / East Ward bldg.,
Mumbai …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum District Dy. Collector,

Welfare Centre Bldg., P.Y. Thorat Marg,
Near Chembur Railway Station,
Chembur (W),
Mumbai – 400 089.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding zopadpatti survey form no.
1517328 whether this form was with the Mumbai Municipal Council and other related
issues. The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 1.12.2008 informed him that
his form has been sent to ward office M East). The Asstt. Commissioner M (East)
however has informed him that the form was not available in his office.
present. The appellant has contended that the information has not been furnished to him.
The respondent’s contention is that appellant’s form has been sent to the ward
office M (East). He has stated that this survey was conducted on Municipal Land and
because of change in the policy the whole set of documents was sent to the ward M
(East). He has produced copies of some document which show that appellant’s
application was incomplete and sent to the ward office.
parties. It is revealed that these are two versions-tahsildar says, records have been sent
but the Asstt. Commissioner says they are not with him. Both versions cannot be true.
Since the tahsildar has submitted some papers to the Commission, I am inclined to direct
the Asstt. Commissioner to look into his records more carefully otherwise he may be held
responsible for furnishing wrong information.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The tahsildar will send a set of documents to the Asstt.
Commissioner M (East) who will thoroughly search his record collect the relevant
information and furnish to the appellant in 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2041/02

Vile-Parle (West),
V/s


GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought Certified Copies of all Meetings of Managing
Committee & Certified Copies of all payments made to various parties by cash or cheque
by Gokul Divine CHS Ltd. Not satisfied with responses from the Public Information
the Commission. The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. Appellant and respondents were
present. The appellant has contended that the information sought has not been provided.
The respondent’s contention is that the information is available with the society and
appellant should collect from there.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information is not available with
the Public Information Officer. The Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960
empowers the District Deputy Registrar to provide relief to members of societies.

Order
The appeal is disposed off. The Deputy Registrar should provide relief to the
appellant under Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act 1960.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2042/02

Vile-Parle (West),
V/s


GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information:
d) What is the percentage for Non-Occupancy Charges levied by the Society
and whether it is calculated on basis of maintenance charges or service
charges?
e) Certified copy of List of Parkings in the building, both stilt parking &
open parking.
f) Which parkings have been transferred, from & to whom, by the Society
from the formation of Society till date.
still not been furnished the information. The respondent’s contention is that this
information is available at society’s level and the appellant should obtain from these.
parties it is revealed that the society is not furnishing the information. Since society have
not been designated as Public Authorities it is not possible for the Commission to
intervene directly. The Commission however, is of the view that the information on point
no.1 may be furnished to the appellant. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is partially allowed. The Public Information Officer to furnish

required information to the appellant within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2026/02
Shri. Mohammed Nasir Mohammed Jahir Shaikh

Haji Yasin Chawl, Andheri Plot,
Jogeshwari (East),
V/s

Paliram Path,
Andheri (W),

Paliram Path,
Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 053.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a certified copy of the complaint made against
encroachment by Mrs. Shehnaz Khan. The appellant also wanted to know details of
action taken.
received a copy of the complaint made by Shri. Pir Mohammed against Mohammed
Kalim and not Mrs. Shehnaz Khan as requested. The notice by MCGM was issued in the
name of Shehnaz Khan.
parties it is revealed that the notice was served to Shehnaz Khan and structure demolished
although the complaint was against Kalim Mohammed. It is nobody’s case that
authorised structure has been demolished. The appellant’s argument that complaint was
received on 6.8.2007 and notice issued on 7.8.2007. He suspected some conspiracy.
Nobody can be hauled up for being prompt. Technically, there was no complaint against
Shehnaz Khan. In view of the fact that unauthorised structure has been demolished after
service of notice I am of the view that the case should be closed. It is not correct to
conclude that the unauthorised structure was demolished without complaint and hence it
is wrong. I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2034/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to his complaint dated 22.1.2007
and action taken on his complaint. Not satisfied with responses from Public Information
the commission. The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. The appellant did not turn.
Respondents were present. He has not been informed what action has been taken on his
complaint against the Salsette Catholic Co-operative Housing Society. He has also
pleaded for action against the Public Information Officer. The respondent contention is
that action has already been initiated and the appellant has been informed.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished. Action has
already been initiated. The Public Information Officer informs the appellant about the
latest position. Action against societies has a long process and it is not possible to
monitor under the RTI Act. The Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is sufficiently
equipped to provide relief to members of Cooperative Societies.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2033/02

Bandra (W),
V/s

Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding case file Leslie Almeida V/s.
Selsette Catholic Co-operative Society – Compliance of circular from Commissioner of
Co-operative and Registrar, Maharshtra State Pune regarding adopting society in society.
Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal
was heard on 9.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present.
The appellant has contented he has not been furnished the information. He has
brought to the Commission’s notice that the First Appellate Authority had ordered the
Public Information Officer to arrange inspection relevant documents to the appellant.
The respondent’s contention is that necessary documents will be shown to him and copies
of selected ones will be provided.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appeal is to be allowed. I therefore, pass

Order
The appeal is allowed. The Public Information Officer to arrange for inspection
of documents and furnish copies of documents requested the appellant.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 09.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2010/02
Shri. Shankar N. Shetty

11-B, Shop No.
D’Silva Baug, Asalfa,
Ghatkopar (W),
V/s

M.M.R.D.A.,
Bandra (E),

M.M.R.D.A.,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 1.9.2008 had asked information on the
following points:
f) Whether the road Alignment of Eastern Express Highway to Sakinaka up
to L.B.S. of AGLR Sanctioned or not.
g) Provide a copy of Plan & related documents to road Alignment of Asalfa
at Map No. 9 & Map No. 8 of AGLR.
h) At map No.9 of Sakinaka to Asalfa, whether alignment was changed after
2004, give a copy of Map No.9.
i) The sanctioned Road line of BMC for AGLR at Sakinaka to LBS is
strictly followed by the competent authority while road widening in said
road.
j) Name of the Officer in charge regarding supervision this above matter.
There is nothing on record to show that either the Public Information Officer or
the First Appellate Authority has passed any order. The appeal was heard on 4.3.2008.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant reiterated his stand that
information has not been furnished to him. The respondent stated that they are only
executing the work and do not have all the information required by the appellant. I do
not agree. The Act provides that if the information sought does not relate to him, he
should have transferred the application to the Public Authority who is having the
information. Alternatively he can also seek information and furnish to the appellant.
Neither of the step has been taken by the Public Information Officer. I therefore, pass the
following order.
Order
The Public Information Officer to furnish information within 30 days. If he does

not have all the information he should collect from relevant development and furnish to
the appellant since this has not been done earlier.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 9.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2056/02
Shri. Sanjay Govind Dhuwali

4/305, ‘Rachna’, Chikhalwadi,
N.B.Marg,
Grant Road (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Director (Marketing)

Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra,
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Director (Marketing)

Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to building no. 21 A
21 B, Bimbisar Nagar, Goregaon, Mumbai. The appellant has sought information
regarding grant of occupancy certificate, no. of tenements, no. of times advertisement for
sale has been given etc.
was present. The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the information.
The respondents have agreed to furnish the same. It is therefore, ordered that information
must be furnished within the time prescribed in this order failing which action under
section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated against the Public Information Officer.

Order
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2055/02

Vikroli (E),
V/s

M.M.R.D.A.,

M.M.R.D.A.,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
Shri. Govind Kanade ID No. 184 at Nahar. The appellant stated that his name did not
appear in map no.7 but he has been allotted a tenement. He wanted to have copies of
documents which formed the basis of allotment.
was present.
The appellant has contended that despite the fact that Shri. Bhaskar Govind
Ranade’s name did not appear in map no.7, he was given tenement. He has not been
given copies of document which made him eligible. The respondent’s contention is that
the allotment has been done based on the baseline survey conducted by SPARK – an
agency which was appointed in consultation with the World Bank. The MMRDA does
not have any of the documents. They have gone by the survey report. They have also
contended that they had offered whatever information was in their possession but the
appellant refused to accept.
parties it is revealed that MMRDA has allotted tenement based on the Baseline Survey
report. They have contended the names were included in accordance with the guidelines
given to SPARK. Under these circumstances appellant can get whatever is available and
non existent information cannot be furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2045/02

Vikroli (E),
V/s

M.M.R.D.A.,

M.M.R.D.A.,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
Shri.Sunil Vasant Kudtarkar, Smt. Rekha Sunil Kudtarkar, Raghunath B.Karande,
Ibrahim Dustagir Bagwan & Smt. Hazarabi Ibrahim Bagwan at different sites. The
appellant wanted copies of document which formed the basis of allotment to them.
Not satisfied with responses from Public Information Officer and the First
The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished copies of documents
which made these people eligible for allotment. The respondent’s contention is that
allotments have been done on the basis of the base line survey done by SPARK and SRS.
It has been stated by them that they do not have any original documents. They therefore
cannot furnish the information required by the appellant.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the issues raised by the appellant requires
investigation. Names of allottees reveal that they are husband and wife team. I am not

aware whether the Rehabilitation Policy allows allotment of separate tenements to
husband and wife. All the three cases are similar. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The MMRDA will get this investigated. Whether
husband and wife can be given separate tenements and inform the appellant within 30
days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2048/02
Shri. Muharam Ali Shafiulla Ansari

Dr. Zakir Husain Nagar,
Ghatkopar-Mankhurd Link Road,
Govandi, Mumbai – 400 043. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum cum Asstt. Commissioner

Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071. …. Respondent

Colony Office (4),
Chembur, Mumbai – 400 071.
GROUNDS
1) Information required about the complaint lodged with Sr. Colony Officer,
higher officers of M.C.G.M., lower officers of M.C.G.M. and complaint
received by Sr. Colony Officer from various places against Abdul Khalid
Sardar Shaikh.
2) What action Sr. Colony Officer had taken over my complaint against above
person over my complaint dispatch letters
1) 16.04.2007 dispatch no. P-209
2)10.05.2007 dispatch no. P- 2147 with your office. Please inform me
in detail about the action taken.
3) The jhopada constructed by Abdul Khalid Sardar Shaikh in Dr. Zakir
Hussain Nagar is illegal, unauthorised, nor his name figure in voters list as
on 1.1.1995 then what action has been taken by your office against him and
his jhopada.
4) The Colony Officer Mr.Katkar has claimed to issue notice to Abdul Khalid
Sardar Shaikh, I asked him to furnish me the copy of the notice, its
receiving dated but no such required copy has been issued to me.
The appeal was heard on 12.3.2009 and the respondent has made his submission in
writing the appellant has contended that he has not been given information regarding
action taken on his complaint against Abdul Khalid Sardar Shaikh. The respondent’s
contention is that information has already been furnished. He has submitted copies of
documents offered to the appellant.
The Public Information Officer by his order dated 18.6.2007 has furnished the
information. It clearly says that verification was done and no action as per the Slum Act
was warranted against Shri. Abdul Khalid Sardar Shaikh. In the light of this I pass the
following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1848/02
Shri. Gopal Bapu Avghade

Bldg. No. 46, Room No. 1895,
2nd floor, Vartak Nagar,
Pokharan Road No. 1,
Thane – 400 606. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Managing Director,

5th Floor, Thane (W). …. Respondent
Public Information Officer District Manager,

5th Floor, Thane (W).
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding applications sent by Rajashri
Shikshan Sanstha to Lokshahir Annabhau Sathe Vikas Mahamandal Ltd. for Computer
Training, Beauty Parlour, Painting Automobile during 2004-2005 & 2005-2006. He has
also sought information regarding grants released to the institution during 2004-2005,
2005-2006.
present. The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the required
information. The respondent’s contention is that the information has been collected and
the appellant was asked to deposit Rs.500/-. He did not deposit the amount and has come
in appeal.
parties, it is revealed that the Public Information Officer has asked the appellant to

deposit Rs.500/-. He also stated that there were 395 applications and excess if any will
be refunded and short fall recovered from the appellant. This, I feel is not unreasonable.
The appellant should deposit the amount and collect the information.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2095/02
Shri. Sunil Haribhau Jogdand

63, Shastri Nagar,
Near Evergreen Hotel,
Bandra (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Commissioner,

Bhabha Hospital Bldg.
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer Asstt. Commissioner,

Western Syburb, K-East Zone Office,
Gundawali, Andheri (East),
Mumbai – 400 069.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of the complaint letter written by
Hon.Dy.Chairman, Vidhan Parishad and action taken on that. Not satisfied with
19.3.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. Appellant has contended that the Hon.
Chairman had written a letter dated 12.9.2006. He had requested for a copy of the letter
and action taken report. The Public Information Officer and Asstt. Commissioner
(Encroachment Western Suburbs) by his letter dated 30.8.2007 informed the appellant
that they are in correspondence with Hon. Dy. Chairman for no objection. The First
Appellate Authority by his order dated 16.7.2008 ordered that a copy off the letter should
be given after taking necessary permission.
After going through the case papers the Commission has come to the conclusion
that information must be furnished. This is a letter written by a Public figure to a public
authority. The request for no objection remains unreplied. Again section II proviso is
very clear except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure
may be allowed if public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible
harm or injury to the interest of such third party. In the light the above discussion I am of
the opinion that the required information should be furnished.
Order
Information to be furnished by Asstt. Commissioner (Encroachment Removal)

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2096/02
Shri.Nishant Subhash Ghadge

21, “Gokul”,
Dr.Pednekar Bldg.,
S.M. Marg,
Kurla (W),
V/s

Mumbai Division,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. …. Respondent

Mumbai Division,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Kachchhi Visa Oswal Jain
Seva Samaj, Kurla. He sought documents relating to registration of the trust, permission
obtained from the Charity Commissioner, copy of the memorandum of association and
other documents.
not been given the required information. The respondent’s contention is that since the
range of information was very wide it took sometime to compile. It was stated by her
that she has brought the information and was ready to hand over to the appellant. The
appellant also agreed to accept. The documents were handed over to the appellant. The
appellant however expressed his apprehension that he might not have been given full
information. The balance available information if any should be handed over / furnished
to him within 15 days of his request.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 12.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2092/02
Shri. Pradeep Shamrao Patil
508/B2, Unity Complex,
Rajanpada, Off Link Road,
Opp.Toyata Showroom,
Malad (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer Additional District Registrar,
Bandra (East),

Bandra (East),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the agreement deed registered
under registration receipt no. P/2556/91. Not satisfied with responses from the Public
appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on 19.3.2009.
not been provided the information despite furnishing all relevant details. The
respondent’s contention is that the document was not readily available and hence the
parties I have come to the conclusion the information must be furnished.
Order

within 15 days, failing which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2091/02
Shri. Namdeo Kashinath Kamble

Rameshwar Chawl Committee Unit – 1559,
Sandesh Nagar, Bail Bazar,
Kurla Andheri Road,
Kurla (W),
V/s
Ghatkopar (E),
Public Information Officer Asstt. Engineer,

Ghatkopar (E),
Mumbai – 400 077.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the office of the Asstt.
Engineer (Maintenance) N- Ward, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai. Not satisfied with the
19.3.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contented that he has
not been furnished complete information. The ward officer has denied the existence of
unauthorised structure and has also not given information regarding deposit made by the
contractor. The respondent’s contention is that there are no structures and information
regarding deposit will be furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that remaining information must be furnished. The
Public Information Officer will inform him whether there are unauthorised structures and
if yes, he will take action and inform the appellant. The Public Information Officer will
furnish information regarding deposit made by the contractor.

Order
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2090/02

V/s
First Appellate Officer Asstt. Municipal Commissioner,
Public Information Officer Medical Officer of Health

Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Hotel Maya Bhuvan
“Spring”, Hazarabai Shop No.1, Irla Station Road, Vile Parle, Mumbai – 400 056.
was present.
information - Certified copies of license, details of violations of conditions and
encroachment on compulsory open space. The respondent’s contention is that
information has already been furnished. It has also been disposed off within the time
limit.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by I
have come to the conclusion that the required information has been furnished. It is
therefore, decided to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2097/02
Smt.Poonam P. Patel
Andheri (W), .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer District Dy. Registrar,
Public Information Officer Dy. Registrar,

K – West Ward,
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
“Under which law and act administrator Mr. S.M.Mohite removed my
membership and my name from the “J” register of the society without any reason.
In case, if the information is not available with you, you are as per R.T.I. act 2005,
suppose to obtain from the administrator deputed by the Deputy Registrar K-west and
provide me. In case, if the information is not provided, it will be regarded as malafide
suppression of information by the Public Information Officer, the Deputy Registrar
K-west ward.”
absent. The appellant has contended that his name has been removed from ‘J’ register of
the society. He has sought information under which law his name was removed from the
register and for what reason.
The respondent was not present and so it is presumed that he has nothing to say.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments advanced by the
appellant, it is revealed that the appellant had sought information by his application dated
4.8.2008. The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 28.8.2008 informed the
appellant that he should obtain information from the Managing Committee to whom the
charge has been handed over by the Administrator. There is nothing on record to show
that the First Appellate Authority has passed any order. It is also pertinent to note that
the issue whether societies are covered under the Right to Information Act has not been
finally settled. The Hon. Karnataka High Court in its order in writ petition no. 16901 /
2006 (GM – RES) has observed that ‘solely on the basis of supervision and control by the
Register of Societies…. a society cannot be termed as public authority. So as to include a
society within the definition of the term public authority it should fulfill the conditions
stipulated in sub clause (d) of clause (h) of section 2 of the RTI Act.’ The information
asked in this case is not very clear. The DOPT under its circular dated 25.4.2008 has
clarified as follows:
Only such information is required to be supplied which already exists and is held
by the public authority or held under the control of the public authority. It is not required
under the Act to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problems
raised by the applicants or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions.
In the light of the above discussion it is clear that the Public Information has
informed the appellant in time and the question of any action against him does not arise.
I am also in agreement with him on the issue that the information is not available with
him and should be collected from the society. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 19.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1721/02
Shri.Pravin Nagesh Ratnapur

9, Kamathipura, Bldg. No. 28/30/32,
S.P.Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Investigation Officer,
Member Secretary,
Divisional Caste Certificate Verification Committee No.1,
Mumbai Division,
Kokan Bhavan,
New Bombay. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Tahsildar,

Mumbai City, Old Custom House,
Shahid Bhagatsingh Marg,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding issuance of caste certificate.
Authority the appellant has filed this second appeal before the commission. The appeal
was heard on 24.2.2009.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that his
original certificate was sent for verification to the Divisional Caste Verification
Committee. The Divisional Caste Verification Committee by his letter dated 18.10.2008
informed him that available evidence does not support his claim of being a Hindu Parit.
The appellant says that his certificate has been confiscated by the committee. He applied
to the Dy. Collector for a certificate that he belongs to ‘Kamati’ caste. No decision has
been taken and no information furnished. The respondent has contended that unless the
earlier certificate is cancelled, his application for caste certificate cannot be considered.
In the light the above following order is passed.
parties I am of the view that the Divisional Caste Verification Committee must clearly
inform the appellant about the status of his case for verification. The respondent has
agreed to consider appellant’s case once they receive some communication from the
committee that the earlier certification is cancelled / or no longer valid. I therefore, pass
the following order
Order
The Divisional Caste Verification Committee must inform clearly the appellant
and Dy. Collector regarding the status of his certificate (Hindu Parit). In case they have
cancelled, the same may be informed. This should be done within 3 weeks. The Dy.
Collector in charge of issuing caste certificate should consider appellant’s case on merit
and inform him accordingly.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1860/02
Shri.Tushar Babanrao Deshmukh

C/o Shri. B.N.Deshmukh
“Chandramauli” Rajarshi Shahu Nagar,
Ward No. 16, Tal – Buldhana,
Dist.- Buldhana – 443001. .… Appellant
V/s
Public Information Officer cum Dy.Secretary,

Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to his application for copies
evaluated answer sheets. His request has been denied by the Public Information Officer
and the First Appellate Authority.
The appellant has contended that he had sought copies of his answer books which
have been denied. The respondent has contended that copies of evaluated answer books
are not given to candidates although marks are communicated to them. It has also been
stated that this is personal information and has no content of public interest. The
respondents have stated that even the Hon. Supreme Court does not accept this as a
fundamental right.
parties, it is revealed that the appellant had appeared for the competitive examination for
selection of Asstt. Sales Tax Inspector / Deputy Inspector of Police. He feels that his
paper no. 1 and 2 have not been evaluated properly. The Commission has been receiving
a large no. of such appeals. The Commission however is of the view that copies of
evaluated answer books need not be given. The Central Information Commission in
Appeal No. ICPB / A-2/ CIC / 2006 has held that supply of a copy of the evaluated
answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection process.
I therefore, feel that the Public Information Officer’s and the First Appellate Authority’s
decision need not be interfered with. I therefore, disallow the appeal
Order
The appeal is disallowed
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1858/02
Shri. Purushottam Trimbak Vyas

Samarth Gajanan Nagar,
Old City,
Akola – 444002. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Joint Secretary,
Mantralaya,

Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to alleged irregularities at
Murtuzapur Hospital, names of those involved whether Secretary’s Committee submitted
report to govt., names of officers who were suspended and names of officers who were
reinstated.
The appeal was heard on 21.2.2009. The appellant has contended that he has not been
furnished the information despite repeated requests.
The respondent’s contention is that since the matter is still under investigation, the
required information was not furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the respondent has denied the information
under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. The section says that there shall be no obligation
to give information to any citizen if this was likely to impede the process of investigation
or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. While the report submitted to govt. and
names of officers allegedly involved and the proposed action may not be disclosed but
names of officers who were suspended and reinstated are matters of record and in my
view do not stand covered under section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act. I am therefore, of the

view that names of officers who were suspended and those reinstated should be
furnished. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1946/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
(3) Receipt books
(4) Ledger books /s
(5) Cash book / s

order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1887/02
Shri. Mahavir Prasad Saini & Others

Shri. Abdul Gaful K. Hunshal
Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 032. .… Appellant.
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Upper District Collector
Suburb, Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. District Collector

Suburb, Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to Maharashtra Nagar,
Residents Sahakari Grih Nirman Sanstha Kherwadi, CTS No. 629. The appellant had
sought copies all documents in connection with redevelopment exchanged between SRA
and the developer.
appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the information required by him.
It appears from case papers that he had inspected the documents and informed the
Additional Collector by his letter dated 20.5.2008 regarding his requirement. There is
nothing on record to show that he has been given the information. I therefore, pass the
following order.
Order

Information Officer within 15 days. Public Information Officer to show cause why
action under section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 should not be initiated
against him.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1053/02
Shri.Raju Maruti More

Siddharth Nagar, Room No. 40,
Bhalekar Wadi,
Near Munjal Nagar Complex,
Chembur, Mumbai – 400 089. .… Appellant
V/s
Bandra (E),

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
vii) Detailed Project Report (DPR) of Slum Sanitation Project (SSPS) in
Mumbai.
viii) Implementing agency.
ix) Time required for implementation of the project.
x) Share of funds from Central, State govt. under the JNNURM Scheme
xi) Any Community which has been affected.
xii) If yes, Rehabilitation policy for the project affected people (PAPs).
1) The period to which the information relates: Dec 2005 – July 2007.
Appellate Officer and the First Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this second
appeal before the Commission. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 16.2.2002.
Appellant and respondent were absent. The appeal was fixed earlier also on 23.12.2000
but nobody had turned up. The case is therefore closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2063/02
Shri. Sanjay C. Patel

Canteen Plot No.2,
Kandivali Co-op.Ind. Estate Ltd.,
Charkop, Kandivali (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Registrar of Director
Opp. Mantralaya,

Opp. Mantralaya,
Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Kandivali Co-operative
Industrial Estate, Kandivali. The appellant had sought information on 14 points relating
to the Industrial Estate. His application dated 29.4.2008 to the Industrial has remained
unreplied. He filed the first appeal with Joint Registrar in the Director of Industries but
did not get the required information.
Appellant has contended that he has been designation as a Public Information
Officer and cannot act as the First Appellate Authority has been designated separately.
The respondent’s contention is that he needs information which he is not getting from the
Industrial Estate or the concerned Dy.Registrar of the area or the Joint Registrar in the
Directorate of Industries.
parties I have come to the conclusion that it is question of not designating Public
Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority properly. The Joint Registrar is a
Public Information Officer so; he cannot hear the first appeal. Normally, the First
Appellate Authority should have been designated. Taking into account, the fact that
furnishing information is the most important of all issues I order that the Joint Registrar
who has been designated as Public Information Officer in the office of the Directorate of
Industries should furnish the information. If it is not available with him, he should
arrange to collect it and furnish to the appellant on point no.3,4,5 and 4 since the rest is
concerned with jurisdiction and other hypothetical issues. I pass the following order.
Order

within 30 days failing which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 20.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2110/02
Shri. Dattatray Ganpat Pawar,

F – 17, Police Colony,
Pathardi Junction,
Nasik – 9. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Divisional Controller,
Public Information Officer cum Divisional Employee’s Officer,

Mumbai – 400 086.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to no. of vacancies to be filled
in by SC / ST. The appellant also asked for copies of evaluated answer books of 5
candidates who appeared for the departmental examination conducted for MSRTC.
not been furnished the required information. He has also stated that it has been wrongly
denied to him by quoting section (8) which does not apply.
The respondent’s contention is that they do not furnish copies of evaluated answer
books. He also submitted that the information regarding no. of vacancies filled in by SC/
ST is being furnished. He also apologised for delay and furnished to appellant
information relating to vacancies filled by SC/ST.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the first part of the information has been rightly
denied. The Commission also holds the view that copies of evaluated answer books need
not be furnished as this will lead to compromising the fairness and impartiality of the
examination system. Information on the second point has been furnished with apology.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 20.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2111/02
Shri. Laxman Tanka Devare

Chairman, Mahatma Jyotiba Phule Seva Mandal,
85, Navi Peth, Jalgaon – 425001. .… Appellant
V/s
Mantralay, Mumbai – 400 032. …. Respondent

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to display of photographs of
Mahatma Phule and Savitribai Phule in Govt. Offices as directed by Govt. The appellant
has also asked for information regarding no.of photographs collected by departments of
Govt.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that many
photographs have been supplied on payment. They are however collecting the figure of
distribution free of cost.
parties I have come to the conclusion that this information must be furnished. Govt.
instruction in this regard needs to be followed honestly. The required information will
show the extent of its implementation by different departments.

Order
within 15 days failing which action under section 20 of the RTI Act will be initiated
against the appellant.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 23.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1536/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum Hon. Gen. Secretary

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the appointment of Enquiry
Officer by the Disciplinary authority. He has sought the following information:-
1. Disciplinary Authority’s order dated 25.5.2007 which is
appointment order of Inquiry Officer.
2. Annexure I of Inquiry Report of Departmental Inquiry of
the appellant.
not been given the information despite repeated request.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant has already these documents in
his possession. These documents were given to the appellant during the course of
enquiry.
the parties I have come to the conclusion that the information must be furnished. The
fact the appellant is in possession of the information cannot be a ground for denial of the
required information. I therefore, pass the following order.

Order

within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1599/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
occupying a tenement which belonged to one Mr. R.K.Pathak. Mr. R.K.Pathak’s father
already given the information to the appellant by his letter dated 5.4.2008. The
respondent’s contention is that the information given was wrong because the name given
was that of the earlier owner.
solution unless the appellant inspects the whole file and asks for whatever suits him. The
respondent agreed.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1809/02
Shri. Deepak Madhavrao Padalkar

17, Forest Colony,
Mini Bypass Road,
Amaravati – 444 606. .… Appellant
V/s

Mumbai – 400 01.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of his evaluated answer book (Paper VII) for the
Maharashtra Finance and Accounts Services Class III. The examination was conducted
by Maharashtra Service Commission. The Commission has denied the information.
The appeal was heard on 20.2.2009 (Video Conference).
This Commission has been receiving such applications. The Central Information
Commission in Appeal No. ICPB / A-2 / CIC / 2006 has concluded that supply of the
evaluated answer paper would compromise the fairness and impartiality of the selection
process. The case was identical. Ms. Treesa Irish, employed as a postman (post woman)
in Ernakulam. North Post Office, Kerala appeared for departmental examination on
24.4.2005 for promotion as LGO. She was not successful and applied for a photocopy of
her evaluated answer sheet. The Public Information Officer and the First Appellate
Authority denied the information and the order was finally confirmed by the Central
Information Commission.

parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been correctly denied. The
information held by the public authority in his fiduciary capacity is also exempt under
section 8(1) (e) and the information being personal having no relation to any public
interest is exempted from disclosure under section 8(1) (J) of the RTI Act. I therefore,
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1520/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum Hon. General Secretary

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Attested copy of presenting officers written say in response to appellant’s
application to Enquiry Officer for allowing him to cross examine PO in question answer
form.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that he was
not allowed to cross examine saying that it was not allowed in question answer form and
can be only in narration. The respondent did not have much to say.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. Information
has been defined as any information in material form. Thus, if the presenting officer has
placed on record his say, the appellant is entitled to have a copy of it.

Order
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 21.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1926/02
Dr. Satishchandra B.Kumar

EMP 10/103, 1st Floor,
Evershine Millennium Paradise,
Thakur Village, Kandivali (East),
V/s
Registrar, University of Mumbai,

Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant by his application dated 17.6.2008 had sought the following
information:-
4) Kindly provide me with the certified copies of the recommendation /s of all
the four experts appointed to evaluate my research publications as reported
in your letter 27th May 2008, Ref.No. TAU/660/2008.
5) Please let me know as to what objective criteria and guidelines were
followed by the said experts in evaluating my research publications.
6) Please let me know:
a) As to on what basis were the said four experts appointed to evaluate my
research publications.
b) The names, qualifications and field of specializations in psychology of the
said four experts.
The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 17.7.2008 informed the
appellant that these information are confidential cannot be furnished. He also informed
him that the experts were senior most academicians possessing high qualification and
experience. The appellant was not satisfied and preferred the first appeal under section
19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The First Appellate Authority by his order
dated 19.9.2008 has virtually confirmed the Public Information Officer’s order. The

17.2.2009. Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has submitted that he
has not been given the information. The respondents have stated that the information
cannot be furnished because they are confidential.
by parties. My conclusion is that the information has been correctly denied. It would not
be desirable to disclosure the findings of the examiner because the information has been
given to the respondent in confidence. There does not seem to be any delay by the Public
Information Officer and so the question of taking penal action against him does not arise.
I am therefore, of the view that the case should be closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1899/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
(3) Receipt books
(4) Ledger books /s
(5) Cash book / s

order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1960/02
Shri. Machhidra N. Karalkar

Hazarabai House, Room No.5,
Irla Society Road,
Vile Parle (W),
V/s
Andheri (W),
Public Information Officer cum MOH

Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information relating to various eating houses on Irla
Society Road, Mumbai. He has sought copies of licenses; report on use of compulsory
open space and action taken against those who violated the regulations.
The appeal was heard on 24.2.2009. The appellant did not turn up. The respondent in his
written submission has contended that the information the appellant he could deposit
necessary fee and collect the information. The appellant however informed the Public
Information Officer that his replies do not cover all the points. The respondent claims
that Public Information Officer’s replies covered all the points and the case should be
closed. Since the appellant was absent it could not be verified.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished. The Public
Information Officer’s letter dated 18.9.2008 (on record) shows hat the required
information has been furnished. In fact I would like to add that the information sought is
not very clear and the replies are adequate.

Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1933/02

C.I.T.U.Andheri Centre,
Bakhtawar Bldg.,
Andheri (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Chief Security & Vigilance Officer,
BEST Undertaking,
Best Bhawan,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 001. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Chief Security & Vigilance Officer,

BEST Undertaking,
Best Bhawan,
Colaba, Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to visits of union leaders to
different depots of Best and meeting held in canteens. The appellant also sought
information regarding the rules according to which they were permitted.
contended that the management has been allowing union leaders from BEST Kamgar
Union, BEST Kamgar Sena, BEST Bahujan Employees Union and BEST Parivartan
Kamagar Sangh to visit depot and have meeting where as his union has been refused
permission. He sought details of those visits but the same has not been furnished. The
respondent was absent so his views could not be ascertained. Security of the case papers
however reveal that the management has furnished the information.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished. I therefore,

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2125/02
Shri.R.P.Yajurvedi (Rao)
302 / A, Nav Asawari CHS Ltd.,
182, J.B.Nagar, Andheri (E),
V/s
Mumbai Area,
Maharashtra State,
Worli,

Mumbai Area,
Maharashtra State,
Worli,
Mumbai – 400 018.
GROUNDS
g) INDIAN PHARMACEUTICAL ASSOCIATION Kalina, Santacruz (E),
Mumbai
h) Bombay College of Pharmacy : Kalina : Santacruz (E), Mumbai
i) Copy of the Yearly Returns filed with the Office of the Charity
Commissioner Maharashtra.
j) Copy of the Amendments, inclusions, exclusions intimated to Office of the
Charity Commissioner as mandated by law.
k) Financial sanctions if any obtained for Capital Expenditure by the said
Trusts or institutions for the Year 2006-07, 07-08 and 08-09 FY from
Office of the Charity Commissioner Maharashtra. Worli Office or other
authority.
l) Pls. provide date and time for inspection of file w.r.t. the above institutions
/ Trusts on mob. 9870351359

The respondent was apologetic for not furnishing the information earlier but had
brought the same at the time of hearing. It was handed over to the appellant during the
hearing. The case therefore is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1949/02
Shri. Nipun Mathkar

B-5, Jivdani Kripa Chawl,
Ramchandra Jadhav Wadi,
Vijay Nagar,
Near Saibaba Mandir,
Nalasopara (E), Dist. - Thane – 401 208. …..Appellant
V/s

Mumbai – 400 023.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to organisation and functions of
the State Central Library, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Nagar Bhavan, Mumbai. The
appellant wanted to know whether complaint box has been taken against those who stole
the books or did not return books.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that he is
not satisfied with the information furnished. The respondent has stated that they have
furnished whatever information was available with them. They have also volunteered
that the appellant can inspect documents and ask for information which would be
furnished. Taking into account the nature of information sought and the respondents
offer to facilitate inspection of document, I pass the following order.

Order
Inspection to be allowed within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1756/02

Swadeshi Mill,
Sion, Chunabhatti,
Mumbai – 400 022. …..Appellant
V/s
Nariman Point,

Nariman Point,
Mumbai – 400 022.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information relating to City & Industrial Development
Corporation of Maharashtra. The appellant has sought information regarding its
organisation functions, recruitment of staff, details of existing staff, arrangement made by
Cidco to access information and no. of illegal recruitment done and action taken against
those responsible.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant however refused to sign on
the ground that the Right to Information Act does not require him to sign his attendance.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. Respondents
also agreed to furnish the required information. They were apologetic about their
inability to comprehend the range and variety of information sought by the appellant. I
therefore pass the following orders.

Order

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1744/02
Appeal No.2009/1745/02

V/s
R /South Ward Office, 2nd Floor,
M.G.Road No.2,
Kandivali (W),
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Engineer (B.F.)

Executive Engineer(B.P.),
nd
R /South Ward Office, 2 Floor,
M.G.Road No.2,
Kandivali (W),
Mumbai – 400 067.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought information relating to Hotel Delicacy Pure Veg. and
Hotel Suruchi Pure Veg. The appellant had asked for certified copies of permission
granted for construction of boundary walls and if no permission was granted, the action
taken against owners.
The appellant did not turn up but has contended that he has not been furnished
information. The respondent in his written statement has stated that information has been
furnished and action against illegal portion taken and appellant informed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 24.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1937/02
Shri. Dattatray Shivram Chavan

129 /6, Dhanshree – A,
Le. Dilip Gupte Road,
Mahim,
V/s
Dadar (W),

Water Works,
Dadar (W),
Mumbai – 400 028.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant is a tenant in Dhanashree building, Dilip Gupte Road, Mahim. It
seems that water supply to the building was disconnected putting tenants to hardship. It
is understood that water charges in tenants’ occupied buildings are paid by the land-lord.
Tenants in turn pay to the landlord. Whenever landlords fail to pay the bill, MCGM
disconnects the supply. It goes without saying that the occupants are put to hardship.
The Commission has received many such applications which apparently seem to be
seeking information but basically are petitions for restoration of water supply connection.
appellant wanted this practice of disconnecting water supply stopped. This case is
different is one sense – the ownership of the building has under transfer and tenants
insisted that if the property is transferred in the name of the owner they would permit
upon him to pay the bill. The respondents reply was that transfer property is subject to
fulfilling conditions and submission of documents.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments I have come to
the Commission cannot pretend to be empowered to intervene. I therefore, close the
case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 27.2.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2141/02
Shri. Swapnil Kadam

510, Himalaya House,
79, Palton Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Deputy Chief Engineer
(Building Proposal) City,
Byculla, Mumbai – 400 008. …. Respondent

Byculla, Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the use of the 1st & 2nd floor
of New Akashganga Co-operative Housing Society. He wanted to know whether the
trust which is occupying the floors has obtained permission for change of user.
The appeal was heard on 26.3.2009
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that these
floors were occupied by Bhulabhai and Dhirajlal Desai memorial trust for carrying out
Educational Medical and relief of poverty, social and cultural activities. The trust is
using it for commercial purposes and it is necessary to know whether change of user has
been permitted.
The respondent contention is that some information has been furnished but files
relating to remaining information have not been traced.
The information sought is simple and it has to be furnished. It is not enough to say that
files are not available.
Order

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2140/02
Shri.Sanjay Anandrao Kalatre

8/13, Sayhadri Nagar,
Charkop,
Kandivali (W),
V/s

Mumbai – 400 077.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding his application for
employment in K. J. Somaiya College of Science & Commerce.
not been furnished the information.
The respondent’s contention is that the application has not been considered
favourably as the same was received after the lapse of permissible time period as per the
guidelines issued by the Government of Maharashtra in this behalf. This information was
furnished by the Public Information Officer’s letter dated 23rd September, 2008.
The college has to go as per the guidelines issued by the Govt. The appellant was
advised to approach Govt.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2146/02
Shri. Pramod Rajaram Pawar

120/B/60, Rajgadh,
Mumbai Nagari Parivahan Project,
M.U.T.P. Tata Nagar,
Mankhurd,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Commissioner,
M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai,
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy.Registrar,

Co-operative Society, Mumbai,
M.M.R.D.A, Mumbai,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Raigad Co-operative Housing
Society, Tata Nagar Road, Mankhurd, Mumbai. He had asked audit report for the period
ending March 2006, 2007 and 2008, no. shops in the building, no. of residents who have
been issued share certificate and accounts maintained by the Chief Promoter for
maintenance of the building.
received incomplete information. He has also stated that the Public Information Officer’s
reply to him was that remaining information was available at the society level.
The respondent’s contention is that he has given the information which was
available at his level. In his detailed written submission he has given pointwise
information. He also assured that he would help the appellant in securing information
from the society.

parties it is revealed that the society consists of project affected people (MUTP) who
have been rehabilitated as per the policy. These are a large no. of such societies of
PAP’s. These nascent societies are yet to set their feet firmly. The Public Information
Officer has furnished the available information. Accounts of expenditure prior to
formation of the society will have to be obtained from the society. The Public
Information Officer should help the appellant. I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1823/02
Shri. Shirish T. Engineer

111, Yasho Mandir,
Sane Guruji Marg,
Tardeo,
V/s
Office of the ‘D’ Ward,
Nana Chowk,
Grant Road (W),

Building Proposal, City,
Office of the “E” Ward,
Sankhali Street,
Byculla, Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding complaint for repair of WC
Pipe at Bhatt Chawl, ‘D’ ward, Mumbai.
Appellate Authority, the appellant has filed the second appeal. The appeal was heard on
26.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present. The respondent
has submitted a copy the appellant letter dated 6.3.2009 that the WC pipe has been
repaired. He has enclosed a photo of the repaired pipe.
In the light of this, the case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1878/02
V/s
MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,

MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,
Mumbai – 400 034.
GROUNDS
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has stated during the
hearing that the required information has been furnished to him and nothing needs to be
done.
In view of this the case is closed.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1879/02
V/s
MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,

MHADA,
DI, DII, MHADA,
Mumbai – 400 034.
GROUNDS
The appellant has stated that he has received all the required information and
nothing needs to be done. It is therefore decided to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2137/02
Smt. Sulochana C. Bane

Vishwakiran Co-op. Hsg. Society Ltd.,
31/16, 3rd Floor,
Shardadevi Road,
Bandra (E),
V/s
Mumbai Housing and Development Authority,
Grihnirman Bhavan, 3rd Floor,
Bandra (E),

Dahisar (E.W.S.), Saphalya Co-op. Hsg. Socty. Ltd.,
Chawl No. 17, Room No. 97,
M.H.B.Colony,
S.N.Dube Road,
Dahisar, Chunabhatti (E),
Mumbai – 400 068.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Saphalya C.H.S. Dahisar (E),
Mumbai. The appellant also disputes the outstanding shown against her.
contended that no information has been furnished. She wanted a copy of the minutes of
the meeting held on 5.6.2006 and 18.6.2006 but refused on the ground that she was a
defaulter although no action under section 101 of the MCS Act was initiated against her.
The respondent was absent and therefore it is presumed that he has nothing to say.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant basically wants the dispute to be
resolved. The appellant have shown to me the original bill for Rs. 612/- which the
society denies having received although the appellant stated that there is an endorsement
on the bill itself. The society has shown outstanding of Rs. 2541/-. There is no way the
Commission can intervene. I am constrained to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 25.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1841/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum The treasurer

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
12) Receipt book/s
13) Ledger book/s
14) Cash book/s
15) Credit voucher’s file/s
16) Debit voucher file/s
17) Pass book/s files or Statements of Bank A/cs
18) Fixed deposit certificates all for financial year ending 31st March, 2008.
Appellate has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on
9.2.2009.
The respondent’s contention is that the trust is exempted from the Right to

Order
The appeal is partially allowed. Information on point no. 122 to be furnished by

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2128/02
Shri. H.S.Ghadge
Adhikshak (Bhandar),
Dadasaheb Phalke Chitranagari,
V/s
Film City,
Goregaon (E),
Public Information Officer cum Finance Consultant & Chief Account Officer
Film City,
Goregaon (E),
Mumbai – 400 065.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of his pay revision order according to the 5th Pay
Commission. The information was furnished to him. All documents were also shown to
him.
Appellant and respondents were present. Appellant has contended that his pay
has been wrongly fixed. It seems that his request for the remaining information was
incidental.
The respondent’s contention is that the appellant was heading the administration
at the time fixing his pay. In any case his request pending and decision will be
communicated to him.
parties I have come to the conclusion that available information has been furnished. The
issue of fixation pay cannot be sorted by the Commission. The appellant has already
taken it up and the same should be decided at the appropriate level. I close the case.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2132/02
Shri. Pravin M. Dali
A – 603, Mauli Co-op. Hsg. Socty.,
Near Municipal School,
Mithanagar,
Goregaon (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Secretary,
Energy Department,
Mantralaya,
Public Information Officer cum Under Secretary / Chief Engineer (Electrical)

Energy Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
This appeal has been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information Act,
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the position of recovery of
electric duty and tax on sale of electricity amounting to Rs.99.25 crores between 2001 to
2008.
The appellant did not turn up. The appellant has contended that he has not been
given information on such a vital and critical issue. The respondent’s contention is that
the information sought pertains to Accountant General’s audit para. The information has
been sent to the Public Accounts Committee of the legislature. The respondent has stated
that disclosure at this stage may lead to breach of Parliamentary Privilege. The same has
been communicated by to the appellant by letter dated 18.12.2008.
After going through the case papers and considering the arguments by parties I
have come to the conclusion that information has been rightly denied as disclosure may
lead to breach of privilege.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2167/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
occupying a tenement which belonged to one Mr. R.K.Pathak. Mr. R.K.Pathak’s father’s
contended that he has already given the information to the appellant by his letter dated
5.4.2008. The respondent’s contention is that the information given was wrong because
the name given was that of the earlier owner.
solution unless the appellant inspects the whole file and asks for whatever suits him.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2133/02
Shri.M. Mohandas Roy

Bldg. No. 21 – B,
Block No. 1097 / 2nd Floor,
M.H.B. Colony,
Mahim (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Superintendent (City)
State Excise,
S.B.Road,

State Excise,
S.B.Road,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Mazgaon Dock Restaurant
and Bar – provisions under which licensees are made to deposit National Saving
Certificates, provisions under which licenses are issued etc.
not been furnished the required information. He has also requested the Commission to
take action against the Public Information Officer for not furnishing the information.
The respondent’s contention is that the information sought was not clear to them
whether it was about Mazgaon Dock Restaurant & Bar or general. This mixing of the
two caused delay. They have however sent the information by speed post and also
brought a copy.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has not been furnished in time.
If points are not clear, the appellant could be asked to clarify. These can be no
justification for delay. Since the information has already been sent I pass the following
order.
Order
The Public Information Officer to show cause why he should not be penalised @
Rs.250/- per day for not furnishing the information. His explanation to reach the
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2170/02
Shri. Gordhandas K. Vangani

C/o. Vanganey International,
7 /1, Hind Service Industrial Premises Co-op. Socty. Ltd.,
Veer Savarkar Marg, Cadel Road,
V/s
(Reconstruction)
Sonawala Bldg.,
Shinde Wadi,
Dadar (E),

RU -1, Bombay Housing Area,
Sonawala Bldg.,
Shinde Wadi,
Dadar (E),
Mumbai – 400 014.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought certified copies of all documents relating to
redevelopment of property bearing CS No. 253 building no. 15-15A Bhorbat Lane,
building known as Vangani Chambers Girgaum, “D” Ward, Mumbai.
not been furnished the information he required.
The respondent’s contention is that the whole file was shown to him and he has
obtained copies of whatever he wanted.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant does admit having received
certain information but feels that the papers required by him are not there. RTI Act
ensures furnishing of available and non existent information cannot be furnished. The
appellant however was offered one more inspection by the respondent and he accepted
the offer. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. The appellant will carry out the inspection and respondent
shall furnished certified copies of selected documents.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2172/02
Shri. Abdul Razak Mohammed Suleman

Flat No. 1901, 19th Floor,
Rehmani Tower, Madanpura,
7/9/11, Mohammed Umer Rajjab Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Asstt. Registrar,
Co-op. Societies,

Co-op. Societies,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
8) I would like to know whether the said Rehmani Tower Co-op. Hsg. Soc.
Ltd. is registered in your department and the above said registration number
given by the office bearer of the said society is true or correct.
9) Names of the office bearer with their designation of the said society,
mentioned in your record.
10) Have the office bearers of the said society had submitted complete Audit /
Account of the Rehmani Tower CHS. Ltd., If yes, then give me the certified
true copy of the same and if no then why? Why they did not submit the
required audit / account report to you.
11) There has flat size of 225 Sq. Ft. 360 Sq. Ft. & 275 Sq. Ft. and Office
bearers of the said society is charging @ Rs. 800.00, 1100.00 and 900.00
respectively.
12) Now they are desirous to increase my maintenance of area 225 Sq. Ft. from
800.00 to 1800.00 on which Ground and have they right to increase the
maintenance directly more than double.
13) Have they opened the required Bank Account for keeping the record of the
said society?
14) Have they submitted the required record of income and expenditure in your
office.
Appellant has filed this second appeal before the Commission. The appeal was heard on
31.3.2009.
The appellant has contended that he was not satisfied with the information
furnished to him. He has been informed that most of the information are with the society.
The respondent’s contention is that whatever information was available with him
has been furnished. He also informed the Commission that he has gone beyond the
information sought and has appointed an administrator according to the Maharashtra
Co-operative Society Act 1960. He also informed that an Administrative Committee in
construction with the appellant is going to be set and he will also ask the administrator to
get the accounts audited. The appellant also admitted that these steps have been taken.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2171/02
Shri. Shivnarayan R. Rajbhar

Ramkhilawan Rajbhar Chawl,
Marol Naka, A.K.Road,
Andheri (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Addl. Collector &
7th Floor, Administrative Bldg.
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Collector (ENG) &

Grihnirman Bhavan,
Kala Nagar,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to structure no.95 and 95 A,
Ramkhilavan chawl, Krishna Nagar, Marol Naka, A.K.Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai. The
appellant has pointed out both these huts have been shown as projected affected person.
The appellant has sought copies of documents.
contended that he has not been given the information he had asked for. The respondent’s
contention is that papers relating to the issue are not available. He has however shown to
me the list of PAPs where Mr.John’s name has been shown twice against hut no.95 and
95 A.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the Public Information Officer has to make all
efforts to trace the underlying papers. It becomes more important when two huts have
been shown against the name of one person. The electricity bill shown by the Public
Information Officer does not even bear the hut no. It is very important to know what

documents were submitted at the time of survey. If the PAP has been given two units in
the rehabilitation scheme it becomes more serious.
Order

within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2165/02
Shri.Chandrakant Amritlal Merchant

J.M. Rane Building & Khambata Pathan Chawl,
153-E, Mosses Road,
Worli, Mumbai – 400 018. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Dy. Chief Engineer (North)
Mumbai Building Repair & Reconstruction and Redevelopment Authority,
Grihnirman Bhavan,
Kalanagar,
Bandra (E),

“D” Ward,
Mumbai Building Repair & Redevelopment Authority,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to repair, reconstruction and
redevelopment of the Lower Parel Division, Mumbai.
not been furnished the information he had asked for. The respondent’s contention is that
whatever information was available has been furnished.
Public Information Officer by his letter dated 12.9.2008 has given pointwise replies. The
appellant reason for not being satisfied was not clear to the Commission. He was advised
to inspect the relevant files if he so desires.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2147/02
Shri. Vishwanath Ramchandra Desai

601, 6th Floor, Shri. Sainath Co-op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd.,
Anandnagar, Vakola,
Vakola Police Station Road,
Santacruz (E),
V/s
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum District Dy. Registrar,

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 055.
GROUNDS
relating to registration of Shri. Sainath Co-operative Housing Society, Anand Nagar,
Santacruz (E), Mumbai – 400 055. He had sought true copies of documents submitted at
the time of registration of the society.
The Public Information Officer informed the appellant that the information sought
was available with the society and the same can be obtained from there.
Not satisfied the reply from the Public Information Officer the appellant filed the
first appeal under section 19 (1) of the RTI Act. The First Appellate Authority ordered
that the information be furnished. The appellant is not satisfied.
Hence this appeal before the Commission.
The appeal was heard on 26.3.2009. The appellant did not turn up but the
respondent was present. The appellant has sought adjournment but the same is not
granted in view of the simplicity of the information sought.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. The Public
Information in this case is the holder of the required information and there is no way he
can shift the burden to the society. The information should be sent by post and free of
cost.
Order

within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1853/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to Maharashtra
College, Mumbai.
(2) Account Statement of Income & Expenditure
(3) Ledger books /s
(4) Cash book / s
(5) Credit Voucher
(6) Debit Voucher Files
(7) Bank’s Pass book/s or Statement of banks a/c’s
relevance like, bank accounts, credit /debit vouchers etc. I am therefore of the view that

order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2169/02
Shri. Govind Sayaji Salvi

B-25, Chaturth Shreni Vasahat,
Mumbai Vidyapith (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Kulsachiv
Mumbai Vidyapith,
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Kulsachiv

Mumbai Vidyapith,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to allotment of staff quarters to
employees of the university. The appellant had sought information on 22 points.
not been given the information required by him. The respondent did not have any
credible answer. I therefore pass the following order.
Order
Information to be furnished within 30 days. Public Information Officer to show

within 30 days. Public Information Officer to show cause why action under section 20 of
the RTI Act 2005 should not be taken against him. His explanation to reach the
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2154/02
Shri. D.B. Ambade

Bldg. No. 19, Plot No. 72,
M.S.E.B. Staff Quarters,
Bandra Reclemation,
Bandra (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum General Manager
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Manager

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to transfer policy, transfer on
administrative ground, request and promotion.
The appellant has sought information on 7 points. Records do not reveal any
order passed by the Public Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority. Under
the circumstances I pass the following order.
Order
Information to be furnished within 30 days failing which action under section 20

of the RTI Act 2005 will be initiated against the Public Information Officer.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2161/02

S.V.Road,
V/s
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,

Building & Factory,
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information regarding the canteen in the
compound of Tahsildar Andheri, Mumbai.
1) It is a fact that there is a canteen in the compound of Tehsildar,
Dadabhoy Naoroji Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2) Please supply me the copy of the documents submitted by the owner of
the canteen for the permission and N.O.C. for the said canteen.
3) Whether the permission has been given to the said canteen or whether
the authorisation is given by your Department, then please supply me
the copy of the permission of the N.O.C. or the Authorisation of the
said canteen.
4) Please supply me the copy of the approved plan of the said canteen in
the compound of Tehsildar.

5) If no permission / authorisation and no approved plan is there in
respect of the said canteen, then why action is not taken under section
351 B.M.C.Act.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant did not turn up but the
respondent was present. The appellant has contended that he has not been furnished the
information despite the First Appellate Authority direction to do so within 10 days.
The respondent’s contention is that the canteen is located in the compound of
Tahsildar and so information may be collected from him.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information as directed by the First Appellate
Authority should be furnished. The Public Information Officer should write to the
Tahsildar, Andheri collect the information and furnish to the appellant.
2)
Order

within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2162/02

S.V.Road,
V/s
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,

Building & Factory,
Andheri (W),
Opp. Best Station,
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to the Xerox stall in
the compound of Tahsildar, Andheri, Mumbai and documents submitted by the owner for
authorisation of the Xerox stall.
1. Is it a fact that there is a Xerox stall in the compound of Tahsildar,
Dadabhoy Naroji road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2. Please supply me the copy of the documents submitted by the owner of the
Xerox stall for the permission and N.O.C. for the said Xerox stall.
3. Whether the permission has been given to the said stall or whether the
authorization is given by your Department, then please supply me the copy
of the permission of the N.O.C. or authorization of the said Xerox stall.
4. Please supply me the copy of the Approved plan of the said Xerox stall in
the compound of Tahsildar.
5. If no permission / authorization and no approved plan is there in respect of
the said stall, then why action is not taken under section 351, BM.C.Act.
contended that he has not been furnished the required information. The respondent’s
contention is that the stall lies in the compound of Tahsildar, Andheri and the information
may be sought from there. The First Appellate Authority however directed the Public
Information Officer to furnish correct reply within 10 days.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the Public Information Officer should write to
the Tahsildar, Andheri whether the stall has required authorisation and inform the
appellant accordingly.
Order

within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2138/02
Appeal No.2009/2139/02
Shri. S.W. Kochikar

7 ‘Om Satlaj Irla,
Vile Parle (W),
V/s
Mahapalika Road,
Public Information Officer cum City Engineer,

Mahapalika Road,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
These appeals have been filed under section 19 (3) of the Right to Information
Act 2005. The appellant had copies of documents reports with relevant file and whether
the court order was perused before dismissal order was issued.
not been given the information despite repeated requests. He has stated that he had
inspected the documents but did not get the required information. The respondent’s
contention is that the appellant was offered inspection of documents and furnished
documents also.
parties, it is revealed that the appellant had sought the same information through so many
applications / appeals. One of such appeals was decided by this Commission and order
dated 31.7.2008 was issued. It was ordered that the required information should be
furnished within 30 days. The appellant is a dismissed employee of the MCGM. He may

be in need of this information for his defence. Nobody is permitted to ask the purpose
for which the information is sought. Seeing the way in which the case was handled in the
past and is being handled now I have come to the conclusion that there is reluctance on
the part of the Public Information Officer to furnish the information. Although I had
advised earlier that the game of shifting responsibilities must stop and information
furnished, it does not seem to have any impact. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order

within 15 days. The Public Information Officer to show cause why he should be fined @
Rs. 250/- per day under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2126/02

Room No. 36/37,
Government College,
Students Hostel,
V/s
3, Mahapalika Marg,

3, Mahapalika Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
3) Copies of orders promoting Shri.Rajendra Rajput, Smt. Yamuna
Nagargoje and Shri. Hiraman Jagtap
4) Name of the administrative officers who looked after administration
from 2004.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2126/02

Room No. 36/37,
Government College,
Students Hostel,
V/s
3, Mahapalika Marg,

3, Mahapalika Marg,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
3) Copies of orders promoting Shri.Rajendra Rajput, Smt. Yamuna
Nagargoje and Shri. Hiraman Jagtap
4) Name of the administrative officers who looked after administration
from 2004.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1516/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Attested copies of audited (1) Statement of accounts ending 31st March, 2006
(2) Statement of income & expenditure ending
31st March 2006.
(3) Ledger books /s for the financial year ending 31st
Mach, 2006.
(4) Cash book / s for the financial year ending 31st
March 2006.
(5) Credit Voucher File for the financial year ending
31st March 2006.
(6) Debit Voucher File for the financial year ending
31st March 2006
(7) Pass book/s or Statement of banks a/c’s pertaining
to the above period
The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. Appellant was present but the respondents was
present.
repeated requests. The respondent has stated that their society is covered under RTI
Act. However taking into account the nature of information sought. I am of the view
that the information must be furnished. It is however, seen that the appellant has sought
copies of documents which may be cumbersome to provide or may not be of relevance
like Credit vouchers / Debit vouchers, bank accounts etc. I am therefore of the view that
order.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1518/02
V/s
Maharshtra College of Arts Science & Commerce,
Public Information Officer cum General Secretary

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Attested copy of Departmental Inquiry verdict submitted by the Inquiry Officer
Mr. Q.J.Shaikh to the Management KIHES in connection with DI of the applicant.
The appellant has contended that he has not been given the information required
by him. Since the respondent was not present, it could not be verified.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information should be furnished. Getting a
copy of the report against who an enquiry was ordered is almost a fundamental right.
Order
within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1519/02
V/s
Public Information Officer cum General Secretary

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Competent Authorities written say in response to applicant’s application to
Enquiry Officer for attested copies of additional documents needed for writing defense
statement in connection with Department Enquiry of the applicant.
Appellant and respondents were present. Appellant has contended that he has not
been furnished the information despite repeated requests. The respondent’s contention is
that the information has been supplied during the enquiry and there was no need to
furnish it again.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information should be furnished. Although the
appellant’s application does not specify the documents he request and simply asks for
copies of additional documents. I hope he must have submitted the list to the competent
authority.
Order
within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1974/02
Shri. Jitendra K. Patel
Shri. Kishor K. Patel
Patkar’s Old Block No.5,
Lalita Sadan, Ground Floor,
S.V.Road, Bandra (W),
V/s
H / West Ward Office,
St. Martins Road,

Water Works,
H / West Ward Office,
St. Martins Road,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to water connection provided
on CTS F/ 1168 since January, 1986. The appellant also wanted to know details of
water meters, water bills, action by the department for non payment, copies of the notice
issued, amount outstanding against each of the water meters and details of water bills
paid during the last 3 years.
The respondent’s contention is that he has furnished whatever was available.
Disconnection of supply is the usual procedure of MCGM and they resort to it in all
cases.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the remaining information must be furnished.
Appellant has not furnished any copy of the reply received and the Commission has to go

with respondent’s version. I am however, of the view that the RTI Act’s basic purpose is
to help citizens get the information they require. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1975/02
Shri. Mumtaz Iqbal Shaikh

Victoria Terrace,
1st floor, Flat No. 4,
3rd Victoria Cross Lane,
Byculla, Mumbai – 400 027. .… Appellant
V/s
E Ward Office,
10, Shaikh Hafizuddin Marg,

E Ward Office,
10, Shaikh Hafizuddin Marg,
Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the notice issued under
section 53(1) dated 4.10.2006. He has asked for copies of the complaint and
correspondence between the ward office and the complaint.
not been given the information required by him. Although he says he has attached copies
of documents but there is nothing on record. I am however, of the view that the RTI Act
is there to help citizens get the information they require. The record also does not show
any information furnished by the respondent. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
within 30 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1913/02
Shri. Swati M. Karande

1, Jyotsna Prakash, 1st Floor,
Opp. Sydicate Bank, Near Rly. Station,
Goregaon (E), Mumbai – 400 063. ….Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Sr. Architect
Architect Department,
MHADA,
Bandra (W),
Public Information Officer cum Architect

Architect Department,
MHADA,
Bandra (W),
Mumbai – 400 050.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the redevelopment of
property at CTS No. 195 part survey no. 106 A, K-3 / K – 4, (now known as Neptune
Co-operating Hsg. Society, D.N. Nagar Co-operative Housing Society, J.P. Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that no
information has been provided. The respondent did not have any clarification to offer.
After going through the case paper and considering the arguments advanced by
parties it is revealed that this is basically a complaint. There are allegations against the
management, architect, objections against the way in which property is proposed to be
developed. Since the complaints are too many, I think it would not be desirable to direct
the Public Information Officer to arrange to furnish the information. The Maharashtra
Co-operative Act, 1960 provides for relief in such cases. The RTI Act can not be used
for redressal of grievances.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1666/02
Shri.Abdul Gafur K. Hunshal

Hotel President,
Maharshtra Nagar,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051. ….Appellant
V/s
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Collector,

GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought a copy of the circular no. 15 issued by the Slum
Rehabilitation Authority. The Public Information by his letter dated 5.5.2008 sent a copy
of the circular. The appellant preferred the first appeal. There is nothing on record to
show whether any order has been passed.
Appellant and respondent were absent.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished. In his first
appeal the appellant has stated that he was not satisfied with the reply. He sought a copy
of the circular and the same was furnished. The contents its desirability or otherwise
cannot be disclosed under the RTI. I pass the following order.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1980/02
Shri. Padmawati Krishnkant Bhosale

C / 40, Dhakenagar, Bhardawadi Road,
Mumbai – 400 058. ….Appellant
V/s
Maharashtra Rajya Mahila Aayog,
MHADA Office, Potmala,
Bandra (E),

Maharashtra Rajya Mahila Aayog,
MHADA Office, Potmala,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to her complaint dated
19.4.2007 and 23.4.2007 for payment of her dues and sexual harassment at work place.
She had sought copies of some documents and action taken report.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that she has
not been provided copies of the documents required by her. She has also stated that
whatever documents have been given are not certified. She has also not been helped in
getting her dues. The respondent’s contention is that a joint meeting was held and she
has been paid Rs. 98,500 /-. The appellant was to contact the employer for the balance
payment. It has also been stated that a committee was set up to look into her complaint

of sexual harassment but since the appellant remained absent, the committee did not
proceed further. She has also been offered legal aid.
After going through the case paper and considering the arguments advanced by
is possible that all the payment might not have been made but as agreed by her she has to
pursue. In any case the Commission does not take up cases of redressal of grievances. In
the light all this I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 26.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1517/02

V/s

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
Attested copies of KIHES’s
1) Audited Statements of accounts ending 31st March, 2007.
2) Statement of income and expenditure ending 31st March, 2007.
3) Ledger book for the financial year ending 31st March, 2007.
4) Cash book of financial year ending 31st March 2007.
5) Credit Voucher file of financial year ending 31st March, 2007.
6) Debit Voucher file of financial year ending 31st March, 2007.
7) Pass books of the Bank a/cs/statements of a/c pertaining to above period.
The appeal was heard on 9.3.2009. Appellant was present but the respondents
was absent.
repeated requests. The respondent has stated that their society is covered under RTI Act.
However taking into account the nature of information sought. I am of the view that the
information must be furnished. It is however, seen that the appellant has sought copies of
documents which may be cumbersome to provide or may not be of relevance like Credit
vouchers / Debit vouchers, bank accounts etc. I am therefore of the view that information
on point no. I & II should be made available. I therefore pass the following order.

Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1958/02
Shri. Ravindra Bhalchandra Bhagwat

17 / A -16, Government Officer’s Quarters,
Haji Ali, Mumbai – 400 034. .… Appellant
V/s

Office of the Accounts & Treasury,
New Government’s Barrack No. 15 & 16,
Free Press Journal Marg,

Office of the Accounts & Treasury,
New Government’s Barrack No. 15 & 16,
Free Press Journal Marg,
Mumbai – 400 021.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought copies of his confidential report from 1979-80 to
1987-88. The Public Information Officer by his letter dated 13.10.2007 informed him
that the same cannot be furnished under the RTI Act. The appellant filed the first appeal
under section 19(1) of the Act but the same was never heard.
been denied the information. His first appeal was not heard. The appellant’s contention
is that the Public Information Officer had replied to the appellant in time and the
appellant was furnished a copy of the Commission’s order in this regard and therefore the
First Appellate Authority did not hear the appeal.
Commission has not been allowing copies of the ACR under the RTI Act. The
confidential reports by its very nature are confidential. The Commission does not favour
disclosure beyond that. I therefore pass the following order.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1977/02
Shri. Pravin Chunilal Shah

Room No. 19, 2nd Floor,
388, Krishna Niwas, J.S.S. Road,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum S.P.I.O.

Executive Engineer,
Mumbai B.R.& R. Board,
C3 / C4 South Ward,
10 /12, Ropa Lane, Chandanwadi,
Public Information Officer Dy. Engineer

Mumbai B.R.& R. Board,
C3 / C4 South Ward,
10 /12, Ropa Lane, Chandanwadi,
Mumbai – 400 002.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the building Flower Mansion,
541, J.S.S. Road, Ward Cess No. 2012, C/s 665. He had asked for the following
information :-
Certified copy of original Building Plan.
Certified copy of Building Plan dated before 20.10.2005 by Architect &
Engineer Mr. Girdharlal Agarwal.
If there are any modification in the original plan than certified copies of
subsequent modified plan.
If Plan of a year 1944 is not available than the certified copies of earliest
first plan after year 1944 available on your records.
contended that he has not been furnished the required information since the respondent
was absent, facts could not be verified. I therefore, pass the following order.

Order
Appeal is allowed. Public Information Officer to furnish information within 15
days. He should also show cause why should be fined a Rs. 250 per day. His reply to
reach the Commission within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2109/02
Shri.Ashok Biharilal Mohare

2179, B, Pinjar Lane,
Yewala,
District – Nasik. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Uppar Sales Tax Commissioner,

Sales Tax’s Commissioner’s Office,
Mumbai City Area, Mumbai,
Room No. 930, 9th Floor,
Sales Tax Building,
Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 010. …. Respondent

Sales Tax’s Commissioner’s Office,
Mumbai City Area, Mumbai,
Room No. 930, 9th Floor,
Sales Tax Building,
Mazgaon, Mumbai – 400 010.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to payment of sales tax on sale
of gas, stove by M/s. C.D. Patni, distributor of Hindustan Gas and Swagat Gas Agency
distributor of Bharat Gas (2000-2001 to 2005-2006).
The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present.
The appellant has contended that the required information has not been furnished.
The respondent’s contention is that the information has been furnished as per the
order of the First Appellate Authority.
After going through the case papers considering the arguments advanced by
parties it appears that there has been a lot correspondence because the applicant had
complaint to the Hon. Chief Minister and the same landed in the office of the Joint
Commissioner Sales Tax, there have been references and back references. Finally, the
information has been furnished by Public Information Officer’s letter dated 15.4.2006
(Swagat Gas Agency) and letter dated 23.5.2006 (M/s. C.D. Patni). He has also been

informed that assessing authorities have been directed to complete the assessment and
initiate recovery proceedings from 2002-2003. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Shri. Firanghish Gai

Wadia Building,
598 – A, Girgaum Road,
V/s

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
(MHADAISCOM), Prakashgad,
Plot No. G – 9,
Bandra (E),

Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Co.Ltd.,
(MHADAISCOM), Prakashgad,
Plot No. G – 9,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information :-
a) What are the “Net Arrears” shows in the bills for February 2007 and
March 2007 in respect of Consumer No. 020020201453, Meter No.
9101038375, standing in the name of my father Mr. Darab M. Asper?
b) What is the planned load-shedding applicable to the area in which the
above captioned consumer is location under your Billing Unit BU 4696
(relevant to the period 1-4-2006 to 30-4-2007) ?
c) Give details of the power break-down / tripping of power / non-supply of
power / failure of power in respect of the area in which the above
captioned consumer is located under your Billing Unit BU 4696 (relevant
to the period 1-4-2006 to 30-4-2007)?
d) What is the name, designation and address of the First Appellate Authority
before whom appeals have to be filed against the Public Information
Officer’s orders?
e) Computation of the charges, if any, payable for furnishing the above
sought information.

The appellant has also complained that the MHADISCOM is not accepting
applications / first appeal under the RTI Act. Case papers show that neither the Public
Information Officer not the First Appellate Authority has passed any order. Hence, this
second appeal.
The case was fixed for hearing on 12.8.2008. The appellant was present. The
respondent did not turn up. After going through the case papers and submission made by
the respondent, I have come to the conclusion that the respondent’s response has been
casual and does not seem to be bothered about the RTI Act. They do not seem to have
taken cognizance of the appellant’s application at all. I therefore pass the following
order.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Respondent to furnish the information sought by the
respondent within 30 days. They will also inform the Commission whether they have
appointed Public Information Officer / Asstt. Public Information Officer / First Appellate
Authority. Failure to comply with this direction will lead to initiation of action under 20
of the RTI Act, 2005.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2065/02
Shri. Ramesh Madhukar Salve

Surji Vallabhdas Chawl, (Shivshankar Prasad Chawl),
Vikroli (E),
V/s
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority,
M.U.T.P.,
Bandra Kurla Complex, 6th Floor,
Bandra (E),

M.U.T.P.,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to allotment of tenement no.
18 and 19 in Priamal Holding, Kanjur Marg, Mumbai.
was present.
The appellant has contended that he has been given misleading information. He
wanted to know as to who were the allottee of these tenements and the basis on which
they were allotted.
The respondent’s contention is that these allotments were done on the basis of the
Baseline Survey conducted. The MMRDA has list of eligible persons but not the papers
which formed the basis of their eligibility.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information has been furnished. It is revealed
from the case papers submitted by the appellant that these tenements were wrongly
occupied by Shri. Yashwant Wagh and Smt. Manisha Paradkar. It has been ordered to
evict them and allot these flats to Shri. Mevalal Vasudeo Vaishyas and Smt. Usha
Premchand Vaishyas. This available information has been furnished. I therefore, pass
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2064/02
Shri. Ramesh Madhukar Salve

Surji Vallabhdas Chawl, (Shivshankar Prasad Chawl),
Vikroli (E),
V/s
M.U.T.P.,
Bandra (E),

M.U.T.P.,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had wanted to know as to how many persons have been made
eligible by the High Level Grievance Redressal Committee from May 1, 2007.
was present. The appellant has contended that he has been given misleading
information. The respondent’s contention is that the required information has been
furnished. The appellant has acknowledged the receipt. Since factual and available
information has been received by the appellant, I propose to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1843/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum the Treasurer

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the following information relating to Khairul Islam
Higher Education Society, Mumbai. The appellant has sought the following information
for the financial year ending 31st March, 2008.
Attested copies of audited
3) Ledger book /s
4) Cash book /s
5) Credit Voucher file /s
6) Debit Voucher file /s
7) Bank Pass book /s or Statement of accounts of all bank accounts all
for the financial year ending 31st March, 2008 and all for KIHES
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended that has
not been furnished the required information. The respondent’s contentions is that theirs
is a trust not covered under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

parties I have come to the conclusion that information on point no. 1 & 2 should be
furnished. This order is passed in view of appellant’s large no. of application relating to
the same organisation and even on the same issue.
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1842/02

V/s
Public Information Officer cum the Principal

Mumbai – 400 008.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to meetings of the Local
Management Committee, Maharashtra College, Mumbai. The appellant has asked for
copies of notices of meeting, agenda of meetings and minutes of meetings held from
1968 to 2008.
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant contended that the
required information that the required information has not been furnished. The
respondent’s contention is that the information sought is volumes and has no consent of
public interest.
details spanning over 40 years according to me are not likely to serve any public purpose.

This would also disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority
[section 7(9)]. I therefore, pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2100/02
Shri. Arun Lobhnath Raibole

B.D.D. Chawl No. 40,
Room No. 2, Dr. G.M.Bhosale Marg,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Competent Authority
404, New D. D. Bldg., 4th Floor,
Old Custom House,
Shahid Bhagatsing Road, Fort,

404, New D. D. Bldg., 4th Floor,
Old Custom House,
Shahid Bhagatsing Road, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to transfer of room no. 4,
B.D.D. Chawl no. 40 by the Estate Manager. The appellant wants a copy of the entry
made in the register of 1977 in the office of the competent authority transferring the
documents to the Estate Manager by letter no. EVC 1278-77 dated 30.7.77.
information has not been furnished to him. In fact he has alleged that it is being
concealed and he has stated that he has seen the entry himself.
The respondent’s contention is that the record is not available and information
could not be furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that diligent efforts must be made to locate the
information and furnished to appellant. The appellant may also be offered inspection so
that he can identify the point on which he needs the information. The outcome should be
communicated to the Commission in the form of an affidavit.
Order
The appeal is allowed. Information to be furnished by Public Information Office
within 45 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2124/02
Shri. Hiralal Devnath Kumbhar

B – 406, Andheri Saibaba Hsg. Socty.,
Old Nagar Das Road,
Andheri (E),
V/s
5th floor, Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra (E),

5th floor, Grihnirman Bhavan,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to allotment of tenement in
Saibaba Co-operative Housing Society, Andheri (East). The appellant sought
information regarding insquer of flat no. 504 & 505 whether any supplementary
annexure 2 has been made reasons etc.
contended that he has not been given the information required by him.
The respondent’s contention is that initially the appellant was directed to get the
information from the society, but in the light of the First Appellant’s order, the list was
handed over to the appellant.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the appellant has raised some very important
points. He has stated that the list does not show allotment of flat no.504 & 505 but they
have not been only occupied but merged and made one. The Public Information Officer
must inform the appellant to whom on what basis these flats have been allotted.
Order
within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1936/02
Shri. Prashant Murlidhar Bansode

Vrajmohan Bldg., Room No. 1,
Iraniwadi Road, No.4,
Kandivali (W),
V/s
Building Proposal,
P & South Ward,
Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Market Bldg.,
Kandivali (W),

Building Proposal,
P & South Ward,
Bharatratna Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Market Bldg.,
Kandivali (W),
Mumbai – 400 067.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Brajmohan Building, CTS
No. 245, survey no. 85, Hissa no.1, Iraniwadi, Road No. 4, Kandivali (W). He has sought
copies of the building plan and completion certificate.
not been furnished the information required by him. The respondent’s contention is that
the building being more than 30 years, file no and other details were not available hence
parties I have come to the conclusion that the approach of the Public Information Officer
as well as the First Appellate Authority has been casual. It is not enough to say that the

file is not traceable. The appellant has given reasonably enough time to trace the file.
Order
within 30 days failing action under section 20 of the Right to Information Act will be
initiated.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2119/02
Shri. Shivkumar Ramchandra Sharma
B – 506, Valencia, 5th Floor,
Raheja Exotica, Patilwadi,
Madh Island, Madh – Marve Road,
Malad (W), Mumbai – 400 061. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum AICTE
Western Regional Office,
2nd Floor, Industrial Assurance Building,
V.N.Road, Opp. Churchgate Rly. Station,
Churchgate, Mumbai – 400 020. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Regional Head / Centre Head,

Wigan & Leigh College (WLC College),
New Mahalaxmi Silk Mills,
Mathuradas Mill Compound,
Senapati Bapat Marg,
N.M.Joshi Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding payment of emoluments due to
WLC College, Mumbai. The appellant has alleged that the Public Information Officer
has not settled his dues not has he issued the salary statement.
Appellant and respondent were present. The appellant has contended that the
required information has not been furnished. The respondent stated that dues have been
cleared. The appellant however wanted a certificate saying that he owes nothing to the
college.
college should issue a No Dues Certificate and inform the Commission.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2157/02
Shri. Ganjibhai Dedhia
405, Keshar Kunj,
2nd Floor, Telang Road,
Matunga, Mumbai – 400 019. .… Appellant
V/s
F / North Ward Office,
Bhau Daji Road,
Matunga, Mumbai - 400 019. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Engineer

Maintenance,
F / North Ward Office,
Bhau Daji Road,
Matunga, Mumbai - 400 019.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding motor loading chowky, Toilets
& Bathroom pest control office, watchman chowky blocking the exit, F North BMC
office illegal construction, Telang Road school ground.
should be supplied information free of cost and action against the Public Information
Officer under section 20 of the RTI Act, 2005.
The respondent’s contention is that the proposal to shift the chowky has already
been moved. The structures are basically for convenience of staff engaged in different
municipal services.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the information has been furnished. These
structures are municipal ones and it is difficult to expect the Public Information Officer
to get remove them unless some alternative arrangement is made. The Public

Information Officer however, should pursue the proposal to shift the chowky and keep
the appellant informed. In the light of the above, I pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2158/02
Shri. Sanjiv Suryakant Yadav
1 /6, Nirmal Niwas,
Nehru Nagar,
Kanjur Marg (E),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum
Office of the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital
& Medical College,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022. …. Respondent

Office of the Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital
& Medical College,
Sion, Mumbai – 400 022.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the Trauma Care Unit at
Lokmanya Tilak Municipal General Hospital & Medical College. The appellant has
raised issues and sought information in respect of filling up of certain vacancies,
inadequacies of staff, pressure of work on the existing staff.
Appellant and respondents were present. Appellant has contended that he was not
satisfied with the reply furnished by the Public Information Officer. The First Appellate
Authority did not respond. He also stated that the idea behind seeking the information
was to improve the existing working of the Trauma Care.
The respondent’s contention is that available information has been furnished. They
also explained that they are moving the file for creation of some post and appellant will
be kept informed.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the available information has been furnished.
The appellant’s concern but cannot monitor the various steps / stages involved in creation

of posts and filling of vacancies. The respondent has been asked to keep the appellant
informed & therefore pass the following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1941/02
Shri. Anil Vedvyas Galgali
2, Old Kharwala Chawl,
Kajupada, Sakinaka,
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Jt. Municipal Commissioner,
Nair Hospital,
Mumbai Central – 400 008. …. Respondent
Public Information Officer cum Executive Health Officer,

Public Health Department,
F / South Ward Office Bldg.,
Dr. Ambedkar Marg,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information regarding registration of birth, issuance
of extract of time of birth, no. of application pending, time being taken in issuing such
certificates, no. of people engaged in this work and the fee charged for this and related
issues.
information furnished is misleading. The appellant also alleged that the Public
Information Officer avoided giving him the correct information. He is also not satisfied
with the reply given by the First Appellate Authority. He has demanded action against
the Public Information Officer.
The respondent’s contention is that the information was furnished to him on
17.9.207 against his application dated 7.8.2007. The first appeal was disposed off in
time. He also informed the Commission that a circular dated 21.12.2007 has been issued
to bring uniformity in the structure of fee for getting the information.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the required information has been furnished
although a little late. The Public Information Officer is directed to ensure that he should

stick to the time frame prescribed in the RTI Act otherwise action against him can be
initiated against him. It is also seen that steps have been taken to ensure that there is
uniformity in charging the fee for furnishing a copy of the birth registration certificate.
Information regarding no. of persons working and total no. of applications received from
24 wards have been furnished under these circumstances, I decide to close the case.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/1760/02
Swadeshi Mill,
Sion, Chunabhatti,
V/s
Housing Department,
Mantralaya,

Housing Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the organization, functions
and duties as per Hon. Supreme Court of India & Hon. High Court at Bombay orders /
judgments and allotted subject to Ministry of Housing Department. He has also sought
information regarding selection of staff, illegal recruitment, and enquiry against those
involved and other details.
Appellant and respondents were present but he refused to sign his attendance saying
that the RTI Act does not require him to sign.
The appellant says that he has not received important information in lawful matter
with no reasons valid in law/ rules/orders as per Right to Information Act, 2005 / Rules in
right time.
The respondent by his letter dated 20.5.2008 informed the appellant that if specific
information is spelt out, the same would be furnished. They repeated the same during
hearing. Since the application is not clear the appellant may inspect documents and apply
for copies of the selected documents.

parties I have come to the conclusion that the information sought lacks clarity and the
appellant should visit the department and inspect documents. He should ask for specific
information and the Public Information Officer shall provide the same. The case is
closed at our end.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2102/02
Smt. Poonam Pravin Patel
Andheri (W),
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum District Dy. Registrar,
Co-operative Societies – 3,
Grihnirman Bhavan,
Ground Floor, Desk No. 69,

K – West Ward,
Grihnirman Bhavan,
Ground Floor, Desk No. 69,
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information, copies of the approval letters of
membership from Director Social Welfare, Maharashtra State, Pune in respect of,
1) Mr. Govind Devrukhkar
2) Mr. Ramdas Jalgaonkar
3) Mr. Chandrakant Chiplunkar
4) Mr. Rakesh Pawar and
5) Mr. Mangal Devrukhkar
Appellant and respondents were present. The appellant has contended the required
information has not been furnished. He has also stated that the First Appellate Authority
has not passed any order. He has also stated that in case information was not available
with the Public Information Officer, he should collect from the member named above,
and furnish to him.

The respondent’s contention is that the information was not available with the
Public Information Officer and the appellant should collect it from the society.
parties, it is revealed that, this special society where the lists of members have been
approved by the Director Social Welfare. The appellant’s membership is in dispute. The
Commission in the past had tried to help the appellant by writing a letter to the Director
Social Welfare. Under these circumstances I am constrained to close the case. I pass the
following order.
Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2123/02
Shri. Hiralal Devnath Kumbhar
B – 406, Andheri Saibaba Hsg. Socty.,
Juna Nagardas Road,
Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400 069. .… Appellant
V/s
First Appellate Officer cum Upper Collector,
Western Suburb, Mumbai,
Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Dy. Collector,

Western Suburb, Mumbai,
Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Saibaba Co-operative
Housing Society, City Survey no. 175 C & 175 D, Mogragaon, Andheri (E), Mumbai.
The appellant has asked a copy of the enquiry report relating to Sr.No. 2 and 3 (Non
residential) and Sr.No.55 & 78 (residential) in respect of their electricity bill. He also
wanted a copy of the enquiry report regarding irregularities while prepared Annexure 2.
Appellate Authority the appellant has filed this appeal before the Commission. The
appeal was heard on 24.3.2009.
not been given the information required by him. The respondent has stated that the
appellant was asked to collect the information but he did not do so.
parties it seems that there were complaints of irregularities while preparing Annexure 2.
It also seems that the same was being inquired into. It is also seen that electricity bills
and ration cards were sent for verification.
The appellant thus wanted information on all those points. The respondent has
attached a copy of the information which for intended for the appellant. I can appreciate
the concern of the appellate and it is necessary to inform him the outcome of the enquiry /
verification of document. I therefore, pass the following order.

Order
within 30 days. Strictly on the points raised by him in application dated 18.8.2008.
Failure to furnish the information will lead to initiation of action under section 20 of the
RTI Act.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.3.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2067/02

V/s


Head Office, Fort,
Mumbai – 400 001.
GROUNDS
Appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present. The respondents have
conducted an enquiry into the allegations made by the appellant. They have obtained
Municipal Commissioner’s order and the same has been communicated. A copy of the
report was also furnished to him. The appellant is still not satisfied and fears that MCGM
may remove him at will. He wants to be assured that his structure will remain protected.
The formal allotment letter has been issued to him. He has also pointed that enquiry
officer has remarked that his structure is illegal and should be removed.

Order
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 03.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2058/02
Shri.Mohammed Hasim Ansari Rampal Lal

Mariamma Nagar, Behind Nehru Centre,
Dr. S.B. Road,
Worli,
V/s

Bandra (E),
Public Information Officer cum Asstt. Registrar

Bandra (E),
Mumbai – 400 051.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Mariamma Nagar Co-
operative Housing Society Ltd. CS 47 (part), Dr. M.B. Road, Worli, Mumbai. The
Appellant has asked copies of the statement recorded by Mr. Patil and reservation of
name for the society.
needs copy of the statement recorded by Mr. Patil after inspection of documents. He has
also stated that the name of the society was reserved twice in 1998 and 2004 but he has
not been given copies deliberately. Records do no show any order by the Public
Information Officer or the First Appellate Authority.
parties I have come to the conclusion that information must be furnished. I therefore,

Order

within 15 days.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2118/02
Shri.Shah Kishore Bhabutamal

Plot No. 20 + 21/3, Parvati Nagar,
Jalgaon – 425002. .… Appellant
V/s

Medical Education & Drugs Department,
Mantralaya,

Medical Education & Drugs Department,
Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to the college of Physicians and
Surgeons, Bombay, Dr. E. Borges Marg, Parel, Mumbai. The appellant had the following
information:-
1) Copy of application made by Godavari Foundation, Jalgaon / Hospital for
affiliation of Godavari Hospital for training candidates for DGO and DFP
courses to College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay, Dr. E.Borges
Marg, Parel, Mumbai – 400 012.
2) Copy of report submitted by Inspection Committee sent by College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay during 1998 to 2006.
3) Name of Members of the Inspection Committee send by College of
Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay during 1998 to 2006.
4) Action taken by College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay on letter
dated 23.3.2005 from Shri. Y.G.Mahajan, Member of Parliament dated
28.2.2005 and Shri. Eknathrao Khadse, Member of Legislative Assembly
dated 28.2.2005.
5) Action taken by College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay on letter
dated 23.3.2005 from Shri.Y.G.Mahajan, Member of Parliament.
6) Action taken by College of Physicians and Surgeons of Bombay on my
complaint dated 14.9.2005.
The appellant did not turn up but the respondent was present.
The appellant has contended that he had sought information regarding affiliation
of Godavari Foundation Hospital by the College of Physicians and Surgeons. He wanted
to know the criteria which have been laid down by CPS for such affiliation. The
information has been denied to him.
The respondent’s contention is that the college of Physician and Surgeons is an
autonomous body and Govt. has no control over it. The required information therefore
could not be furnished.
parties I have come to the conclusion that the Public Information Officer has taken the
correct decision. The RTI Act is very clear in regard to the definition of Public
Authority. As pointed out by the Joint Secretary, Medical Education, Govt. of
Maharashtra in his submission during the hearing since Govt. has no control; the
information could not be furnished. The case is therefore, closed.
I therefore, pass the following order
Order

(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Appeal No.2009/2059/02
Shri. Edwin D’souza

C – 108, Versova Jupiter Co-op. Hsg. Soc.Ltd.,
Lokhandwala Complex, 4th Cross Road,
Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400 058. .… Appellant
V/s

Brihanmumbai Mahanagar Palika,
K / West Ward Office,
Paliram Path, Andheri (W),

K / West Ward Office,
Paliram Path, Andheri (W),
Mumbai – 400 058.
GROUNDS
2005. The appellant had sought the information relating to Versova Jupiter Co-operative
Housing Society Ltd., Lokhandwala Complex, 4th Cross Road, Andheri (W), Mumbai.
The complaint and requested inspection of the building. He has sought copies of the
inspection report and action taken on his complaints.
not been furnished the required information. He has made specific complaints about
certain flat nos. but the Public Information Officer has replied that no unauthorised
construction was detected and therefore no action was initiated.
The respondent’s contention is that the building was inspected and no
unauthorised construction was detected.
I have considered the case papers and also the arguments advanced by parties.
The appellant has made specific complaints about flat no.605, 707 and 708. The reply
has to be specific. The inspection has to be with reference to the approved plan. The
First Appellate Authority has also observed that the information furnished by the Public
Information was incomplete. This reveals that Public Information Officer has not taken it
seriously. I therefore pass the following order.
I therefore, pass the following order
Order

within 30 days. Public Information Officer to show cause why he should not be fined
under section 20 of the RTI Act. His explanation to reach the Commission within 3
weeks.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 31.03.2009.

Shri.Jahangir Ardeshir Rabadi

3 / 901, Navjivan Society,
Lamingtion Road,
V/s

‘D’ Ward Office, Nana Chowk,
Jobanputra Compund, Grant Road (W),

‘D’ Ward Office, Nana Chowk,
Jobanputra Compund, Grant Road (W),
Mumbai – 400 007.
GROUNDS
This is complaint under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This
Commission had passed an order dated 30.7.2008 in which it was observed that the Pubic
Information Officer had furnished the information by his letter dated 15.9.2006. The
applicant complains that it should have been 14.9.2006. In fact there are two letters by
the Public Information Officer dated 14.9.2006 and 15.9.2006 in response to complaints
application dated 12.9.2006 and 21.8.2006. He has also alleged confusion in the order of
the First Appellate Authority. This happened because the complainant had put up two
applications on the same issue. The Public Information Officer has replied twice. The
substance his letter does not change. The complaint therefore does not deserve to be
looked into. The complaint has requested for review of the Commissions order. Since
the RTI Act does not provide for review, I am constrained to close the case.
Order
The complaint is rejected.
(Ramanand Tiwari)
Place: Mumbai
Date: 30.03.2009.

All - Appeal On RTI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

All - Appeal On RTI

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

All - Appeal On RTI

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Before the State Information Commission, Maharashtra-Appeal under

Section 19(3) of RTI Act, 2005.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

appeal before the commission. The appeal was heard on 02.03.2009.

commission in the form of an affidavit. This should be done in 30 days.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Ambivali at Azad Nagar, Andheri (W), Mumbai.

entered into by 68 persons and also copies of consent letters.

The respondent’s contention is that the information sought voluminous and

appellant is satisfied I therefore pass the following order.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer cum Medical Officer,

Authority confirmed the PIO’s order.

inspect the file and copies will be provided to him.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

order. I see no reason to intervene.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer,

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer,

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer cum Executive Engineer,

for not furnishing the information. I therefore order as follows.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer cum Executive Engineer,

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer cum Assit. Executive Engineer,

appointment, years of service, caste and other details.

the required information within the stipulated time.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer,

He wanted information on the points raised in his notice dated 20.10.2009.

may be with SRA.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

appellant can go through and take further steps if he so desired.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

passed enter alia the following order.

recommendation to the appropriate authority. It is needless to say that the Board of

in any avent within a period of three months from today.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

work. I therefore pass the following order.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer cum Executive Engineer

Public Information Officer cum Assit Commissioner

Orlem, Malad (W), Mumbai.

section 257of the MMC Act.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer,

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer,

Public Information Officer cum Secretary,

as required under section 32 of the MCS Act, 1960.

Information Act, 2005.

section 32 of the MCS Act.

C:\Documents and Settings\abc\My Documents\Mr.R.Tiwari\Orders\English 2009\March 2009.doc Kamlesh

Public Information Officer,