Urgent help in wp

You can amend the petition.

Thanks adv. rajeev!

But the list of Acts does not mention Right to Information Act 2005.

Moreover, there is no mistake in the petition.  The number for the Act is not to be mentioned in the petition.  It is to be mentioned in the separate printed form to be compulsorily submitted along with the petition.  I will have to make correction in this printed form.  The mute question is which number should be quoted for Right to Information Act 2005?

You can seek to amend the petition wherein you have mentioned the incorrect details which you apprehend to attract the High court's wrath. The quoting of number if not found or irrelevant, do not quote the number at all, better mention the descripttion alone instead of quoting the wrong number.

Thanks Kalaiselvan!

Let me make it clear my petition is not at all incorrect.  I have correctly mentioned Right to Information Acct 2005 in the petition.

It appears there is a different procedure adopted in different HCs.

At Bombay HC Nagpur bench.  One has to go to a section Officer to file the petition.  There, the officer hands you over a printed form which you must fill up with relevant code nos.  The officer helps you in filling the form.  But you must mention the code.  If you do not mention code no. the petition is not accepted.

In my case the The Right to Information Act 2005 is not at all mentioned in the list given in the form.  Hence the officer suggested to mention the code no of Mahrashtra Right to Information Act 2002.

A local advocate told me not to worry as the petition mentions correct Act name the wrong quoting of a code no. in printed form is insignificant.  The court my not even look at the form.

If your advocate opined it the way what you have stated, it is out of his experience in that court does he expressed it that way.  You may follow his practical advise based on the circumstance.

LATEST DEVELOPMENT

Today, I visited the office of the HC to inquire about any office objection.

There I was told to mention the Act code in the body of the wp.

Then I told the concerned officer that code no 171 is for Maharashtra Right to Information Act 2002 but actual Act under consideration is Right to Information Act 2005 which is a central Act.  Then the officer lady said she will take up the matter with the higher authorities and a new no. will be assigned to the Right to Information Act 2005 in a day or two.

My fear was real.  Had I not mentioned the discrepancy before the office staff I would have been in trouble before the Judge.

I will post the further development  tomorrow or day after.