The petitioner, a Public Information Officer (PIO), failed to provide requested information within the stipulated time because another officer (respondent no. 4) delayed in furnishing the necessary information. The petitioner contends that, according to Sections 5(4) and 5(5) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, the officer from whom assistance is sought should be treated as the PIO and be responsible for any contraventions. However, the court referenced a Delhi High Court decision which held that while assisting officers are also treated as PIOs, the primary responsibility to ensure timely information provision lies with the designated PIO. The petition was dismissed, holding the petitioner responsible for the delay.
Petitioner’s Contention
Reference to Delhi High Court Judgment
Court’s Interpretation
Case Decision
Citation: 2024 Lawtext (BOM) (6) 254
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 7827 of 2019
Date of Decision: 2024-06-25
Case Title: Vithoba Shingne Versus State of Maharashtra, through it’s Secretary, Department of Forest and Revenue and ors.
Before Judge: ANIL L. PANSARE J.
Advocate(s): Mr. S. B. Bissa, AGP for respondent nos. 1 to 3 Ms. Mitisha Kotecha, Advocate h/f Ms. Jaishree Junghare, Advocate for respondent no. 4
Appellant: Vithoba Shingne
Respondent: State of Maharashtra, through it’s Secretary, Department of Forest and Revenue and ors.