Bombay High Court: The petitioners prayed before this Court to issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, to direct the respondent, to inform the petitioners about the detailed roadmap charted by it, whereby the second appeals and complaints filed before it were disposed of within 45 days from the date of filing thereof. The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe*, C.J., and Sandeep V. Marne, J., after taking note that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘the 2005 Act’) did not contain any time limit for deciding second appeals, stated that Respondent 1 should make an endeavour to decide the second appeals/complaints under the RTI Act as expeditiously as possible.
Petitioner 1 was a former Central Chief Information Commissioner, whereas Petitioners 2 to 6 were public individuals. Counsel for the petitioners stated that approximately one lakh second appeals and complaints were pending before the authorities under the 2005 Act and so the State Government should create three additional posts of Information Commissioners.
The respondent submitted that in the State of Maharashtra, one post of Chief Information Commissioner and seven posts of State Information Commissioners had been sanctioned. There were four vacancies, including the vacancy for the Chief Information Commissioner’s post, however, vacancies were filled in by issuing notification dated 4-4-2025. The State Government, after considering the financial impact, should take a decision regarding the creation of three additional posts for State Information Commissioners. Further, respondent 1 stated that the total pendency of the cases before the authorities under the 2005 Act was only 5%.
The Court noted that there was one post of Chief Information Commissioner, whereas seven posts of State Information Commissioners were sanctioned in Respondent 1 and stated that all the posts were filled in by the State Government and there was no vacancy.
The Court opined that for creation of a post, necessary infrastructure was required to be provided and the same involved financial impact. The Court noted that the State Government was presently considering financial impact and would take an appropriate decision regarding the creation of additional posts of the State Information Commissioners if the occasion so arises.
The Court noted that the petitioners only sought relief to direct Respondent 1 to decide the second appeals and complaints within 45 days. The Court further noted that the 2005 Act did not contain any time limit for decision of second appeals and thus opined that even when a statute did not prescribe any time limit for doing an act in a particular time limit, the same must be done within a reasonable time.
The Court disposed of the present PIL and stated that Respondent 1 should make an endeavour to decide the second appeals/complaints under the RTI Act as expeditiously as possible.
[Shailesh Gandhi v. Maharashtra State Information Commission, Public Interest Litigation (L) No. 3143 of 2020, decided on 11-6-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Petitioners: Sunil Kishore Ahya, for the petitioners.
For the Respondent: Seema Chopda for Respondent 1; Jyoti Chavan, Addl. Govt. Pleader with Nazia Sheikh, AGP for Respondent 2-State; Sheshrao Kate, Section Officer, GAD-6, present.
