21.WP.6840.2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6840 OF 2025 Sanjay Raghunath Bawiskar ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents AND WRIT PETITION NO. 6841 OF 2025 ***  Mr. Deshpande Anand S., for Petitioner.  Mr. S. P. Sonpawale, AGP for Respondent Nos.1 and 2 in both petitions. *** CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, JJ. DATE : 15th SEPTEMBER 2025. P. C. : 1. These petitions were disposed of by an order dated 20th June 2025, when respondent Nos.3 and 4 were personally present in this Court. After considering the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner, this Court made the following observations while disposing of the petitions: “3. There are two aspects that emerged from the above fact situation. Firstly, these two officers continue to flout the order passed by the Competent Authority under the Right to Information Act. Secondly, the amount of Rs.250/- per day for the delay, will have to be paid to the Petitioner as the documents have Shrikant Malani 21.WP.6840.2025.doc not been supplied. If the delay is on account of the resistance of the officers, the question would be as to why should this amount be paid through the State Exchequer i.e. the tax payers' money. 4. The learned Advocate representing Mr. Wankhede submits that the documents will be supplied within 15 days. It is also noteworthy that the State Commissioner has mentioned in the order that the compensation amount should be recovered from the officer responsible for the delay. The learned Advocate representing Respondent No.3 Mr. Wankhede, submits that this was done and the amount was paid by the State. The said amount of Rs.24,000/- has been paid by Shri Dhananjay Gangadhar Garje, the Information Officer cum Deputy Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, on 07.09.2022. Yet documents have not been supplied to the Petitioner. 5. The learned Advocate representing Respondent No.3 Shri Wankhede, has been instructed by Shri Hire, Respondent No.4 that a Vakilpatra would be issued and he instructs him to present his case. 6. Respondent No.3 submits that a scrutiny would be carried out and it would be assessed as to why the documents are not issued to the Petitioner. For the delay that is caused after the payment of the amount on 07.09.2022, he would investigate as to whether Shrikant Malani 21.WP.6840.2025.doc any specific officer or the Information Officer is responsible for the non- supply of the documents and implementation of the judgment of the State Commission. After the responsibility for the non- supply of the documents and the cost amount to be paid is fixed, the concerned officer will have to pay the said amount from his salary considering the order of the State Commission. Let this exercise be completed on or before 31.08.2025. Office to list these Petitions for recording compliance on 15.09.2025. 7. He further submits that the Petitioner will have to deposit commensurate amount as per the policy of the Government which will be informed to him in writing within seven days. These documents would be cataloged and would be delivered to him within a period of 60 days from today. 8. We record that the Petitioner shall tender the amount as is intimated as cost of the documents and only thereafter, the documents would be supplied to him. 9. In view of the above, these Writ Petitions are disposed off.” 2. It is in the backdrop of the above quoted portion of the order that today these petitions are listed for compliance. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs this Court Shrikant Malani 21.WP.6840.2025.doc that as per the amount demanded by the concerned Authority, on 19th August 2025, amount of 80,580/- was deposited by the petitioner. ₹ Copy of the receipt is tendered. The same is taken on record. 4. It is further submitted that despite the aforesaid amount being deposited as per the demand made by the concerned Authority, till date neither the documents have been provided to the petitioner nor are the other directions, contained in the above quoted portion of the order dated 20th June 2025, complied with. 5. We find that despite respondent Nos.3 and 4 being asked to remain personally present in this Court and the stern directions issued in the above quoted portion of the order, the said two respondents have not shown any sensitivity or regard for the order of this Court. Hence, there is no alternative but to call upon the said two respondents to remain personally present in this Court on the next date of listing, when this Court may consider initiating Contempt proceedings against the said two individuals. 6. In view of the above, respondent No.3 – Umesh Wankhede, Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department and Rupesh Baliram Hire, Deputy Executive Engineer i.e. respondent No.4 in these petitions Shrikant Malani 21.WP.6840.2025.doc are directed to remain personally present in this Court on 01st October 2025. The petitioner is at liberty to serve a copy of this order on the aforesaid two respondents. 7. Additionally, the Registry is directed to serve the notices alongwith copies of this order on the aforesaid Respondent No.3 – Umesh Wankhede and Respondent No.4 – Rupesh Baliram Hire, before the next date of listing. 8. List on 01st October 2025. (Y. G. KHOBRAGADE, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.) Shrikant Malani