8-WP.12123.2026.doc Salunke IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 12123 OF 2026 Savita Pandurang Bohir } Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra & Ors. } Respondents Mr. Rahul S. Kadam, Advocates for the Petitioner. Ms. Neha S. Bhide, Government Pleader with Mr. K. B. Dighe, Additional Government Pleader and Ms. Apurva Thipsay, ‘B’ Panel Counsel for Respondents-State. CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. & ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J. DATE : 21st SEPTEMBER, 2026 P.C.: 1. By the instant Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks the following substantive reliefs: - “[A] That this Hon’ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to decide the Second appeal being Second Appeal No. 4588 of 2025 filed by the present petitioner on 15th December 2025 before Respondent No. 2 Authority within a period of 2 weeks. [B] That this Hon’ble Court under its Civil Appellate Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India 1950, be pleased to issue writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction directing Respondent No. 2 to initiate proceedings under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 against Respondent No. 3 for having railed to furnish the information despite the specific and operative directions issued by Respondent No. 4 by order dated 30th November 2025.” 2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the State- Respondents at some length. 1 JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Digitally signed by JAYANT VISHWANATH SALUNKE Date: 2026.09.22 18:38:22 +0530 8-WP.12123.2026.doc 3. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner confines the prayers sought qua the instant Petition to a direction to the Respondent No.2 to decide the Second Appeal being Second Appeal No. 4588 of 2025 filed by the Petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, expeditiously. 4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the issue raised before us, we are not inclined to delve into the merits of the matter. However, we expect the Respondent No. 2 to decide the proceedings in the Second Appeal No. 4588 of 2025 pending before it as expeditiously as possible after following the due process of law and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all the stake holders. 5. With the aforesaid direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of. 6. Suffice it to state that we have not adverted to the merits of the matter and all contentions of the parties are kept open. [ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE] 2