902-WP-2594-2024.DOC Rekha Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2594 OF 2024 Pralhad Anant Gaikar …Petitioner Versus State Information Commissioner Maharashtra State information Commission and Ors. …Respondents Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar with H. S. Pawaskar, Atharva Jagtap and Rohan Patil, for the Petitioner. Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. GP with Mr. A. K. Naik, AGP, for the Respondents No. 1 to 3-State. Mr. Kishor Patil with Mr. Dinesh R. Shinde, Anish Kikle, Omhari Fawade and Akshada Nagrale, for the Respondent No.4. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ. DATED: 23rd SEPTEMBER, 2026. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. D. S. Mhaispurkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner. Also heard Ms. Kavita Solunke, Additional G. P. appearing for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 3-State and Mr. Kishor Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4. 2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the order dated 6th October, 2023, passed by the Second Appellate Authority under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ( for REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2026.09.28 18:01:26 +0530 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC short, ‘Act of 2005’), whereby the Appeal preferred by the Petitioner /Applicant was declined on the following grounds:- “ Subject : Regarding the second appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On scrutiny of the second appeal filed u/s 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 against Range Forest Officer Kalyan on 10/03/2023, it has been observed that along with the Second Appeal, since two applications of different dates have been attached, hence second appeal is irregular. Therefore, the said second appeal cannot be filed under Section 19(8)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This letter is being issued with the approval of the Hon’ble State Information Commissioner, Konkan Bench.” 3. It appears from the material on record that the Petitioner had submitted an Application under the Act of 2005, on 30th March, 2021. However, the said Application could not be pursued due to the outbreak of the COVID-2019 Pandemic. According to the Petitioner, he also did not receive any response to his first Application dated 30th March, 2021. Situated thus, on 24th November, 2022, the Petitioner had submitted another Application, seeking the same information, as in the earlier Application dated 30th March, 2021. Page 2 of 8 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC 4. The information sought by the Petitioner/Applicant as apparent on the face of the Application dated 24th November, 2022, are as follows:- “1. The applicant seeks to obtain certified copies of all the documents submitted along with the first application for getting the said saw mill license. 2. It cannot be understood about Plot No./Survey No. 119 R mentioned in the said licence. Therefore, it should be clarified and explained, as to whether the No. 119 is plot number/ Survey number/ Pardi number/ House number or else and also clarify what is meant by R. 3. The certified copies of the documents submitted at the time of renewal of license by the license holder, while renewing the License from 01/01/2020 to 31/12/2020.” In the said Application there is a ‘NOTE’ added to the following effect:- “NOTE: Earlier on 30.3.2021, an application was made under the Right to Information Act, 2005. However, there was a lockdown due to COVID, therefore the information could not be received. Hence, fresh application is required to be filed.” 5. By the order dated 19th December, 2022, the learned State Public Information Officer, in the office of the Forest Range Officer, Kalyan, had declined the information sought by the Petitioner on the ground that, the Petitioner has sought information which pertains to a third party and the concerned person (third party) has refused to provide such information. By relying upon Section 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC 11(1) of the Act of 2005 and the certificate of non-disclosure submitted to his office, the Information Officer has refused to provide the information to the Petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by order dated 19th December, 2022, the Petitioner had preferred First Appeal, which was also dismissed by the First Appellate Forum by the order dated 25th January, 2023, by reiterating similar reasons, as was cited by the Information Officer. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner had preferred Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005, which was not entertained by the impugned order dated 6th October, 2023 on the grounds noted therein. Hence, this Writ Petition. 7. The impugned order has been assailed on several grounds including the ground that the Authority has not properly exercised jurisdiction under Section 11(1) of the Act of 2005 while declining the information sought by the Petitioner. However, we have noted that the Second Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was not entertained by the Second Appellate Forum merely on the ground that there were two Applications, which were attached to the memorandum of Appeal. In fact, the order dated 6th October, 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC 2023, appears to be a communication of the decision of the State Information Commissioner, i.e., the Second Appellate Authority not to entertain the second Appeal although, there is no such order of the Appellate Authority available on record. 8. Mr. Kishor Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4, has submitted that the information sought by the Applicant/Writ Petitioner, being that of third party, the Authorities have rightly refused to provide the same by invoking the provision of Section 11 of the Act of 2005. Mr. Patil has, however, submitted, in his usual fairness, that the impugned order dated 6th October, 2023, is not an order passed in the Second Appeal on merit but was issued on a purely technical ground. Ms. Kavita Solunke, learned Addl. GP has also submitted that the order dated 6th October, 2023, is not an order on the merit of the Appeal. 9. It may be correct to say that the information pertaining to a third party would not ordinarily be liable to be parted with by the Authority unless there is consent of that party. However, in a given case whether, refusing to furnish such information would be in 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC accordance with law or not would depend, not only on the nature of the information sought but also the procedure adopted by the Information Officer while granting or declining such information. 10. In the present case, as noted above, not only the Information Officer but even the First Appellate Authority has declined the information sought for by the Petitioner on the ground that the same pertains to a third party. The circumstances under which the two Applications, namely, one on 30th March, 2021 and the other dated 24th November, 2022, had to be filed by the Petitioner, has been disclosed. The Information Officer as well as the First Appellate Authority did not take exception to the first Application submitted by the Petitioner but had apparently decided the second Application on merit. 11. Under such circumstances, we are of the view that the learned Second Appellate Authority was not correct in law in refusing to entertain the second Appeal on a hyper technical ground that there are two Applications filed by the Petitioner and hence, the Appeal was not maintainable. In view of the explanation available on record leading to submission of two 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC Applications, we are of the opinion that the approach of the learned Second Appellate Authority refusing to entertain the Appeal for a decision on merit was not correct. That apart, in both the Applications, the Petitioner has sought the same information and, therefore, it could not have caused any prejudice to the interest of the opposite party, even if the Appeal was decided on merit. 12. For the reasons stated herein-above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 6th October, 2023, is unsustainable in law. The same is accordingly set aside. 13. The Respondent No.1 is directed to consider the Second Appeal of the Petitioner on merit, based on the second Application, and pass a reasoned order therein, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant and the Respondent, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 90 (ninety) days from the date of uploading of this order. 14. All rights and contentions of both the parties are kept open to be urged before the Second Appellate Authority. Page 7 of 8 902-WP-2594-2024.DOC 15. With the above observations, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) {