SURUPSINGH HRYA NAIK Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Rule. Heard forthwith.

(2.) The petitioner is presently a Member of the Legislative Assembly of the State of Maharashtra. Contempt Proceedings had been initiated against the petitioner by the Honourable Supreme Court, which imposed on him imprisonment of one month, by judgment dated 10th May, 2006. The petitioner on 12th May, 2006 surrendered to the Police Authorities in Mumbai and was taken in custody. On 14th May, 2006 Petitioner was shifted to Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai on account of suspected heart problems as well as low sugar and blood pressure. According to the petitioner he underwent medical treatment at Sir J.J. Hospital, Mumbai for the period of 21 days and was discharged on 5th June, 2006. Petitioner served the remaining tenure of imprisonment till 11th June, 2006 in jail on which day he was released from custody on completing the period of sentence. The petitioner contends that he is suffering from various diseases such as diabetes, heart problem and also blood pressure from 1998-99 onwards and has been admitted to hospital on various occasions on account of his health problems.

(3.) The Respondent No.5 is a private citizen who by an application dated May, 27, 2006 sought from the Respondent No.4, the Public Information Officer of Sir J.J. Hospital, Byculla, Mumbai, the medical reports of the petitioner. In his application it was set out that it was in public interest to know why a convict is allowed to stay in an air conditioned comfort of the hospital and there had been intensive questioning about this aspect in the media and the peoples mind. There is, therefore, a legitimate doubt about the true reasons for a convict being accommodated in air conditioned comfort of the hospital, thereby ensuring that the convict escapes the punishment imposed on him and also denies a scarce facility to the needy. The information, sought was set out therein. On 20th June, 2006 the Public Information Officer addressed a letter to the General Administration Department, State of Maharashtra, seeking information of the legal aspects regarding the application made by respondent No.5 under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. On 4th July, 2006 in response to the letter the respondent No.4 clarified that the Right to Information Act is a Central Act and any clarification, assistance or doubt as to interpretation of the provisions of the Act will have to be sought from the Central Government. On 3rd July, 2006 the Respondent No.4 addressed a letter to the petitioner, intimating him that information about the petitioner's hospitalisation between 15th May, 2006 to 5th June, 2006 had been sought by the Respondent No.5. The petitioner was called upon to give his say as to whether the information should be given. There is nothing on record to indicate whether the petitioner replied to the said letter.