Karnataka High Court
Sri G Basavaraju vs Smt Arundathi on 27 January, 2009
Equivalent citations: 2009 CRI. L. J. (NOC) 613 (KAR.), 2009 A I H C 1664, 2009 (2) AIR KANT HCR 549, (2009) 2 KANT LJ 465, (2009) 4 KCCR 2723
Bench: S.R.Bannurmath, A.N.Venugopala Gowda
M, W,» .
IN THE HIGH COURT or KARMTAKA AT aAxGALo§2§" '%
amen THIS THE 27"' mar or JAm:Agfv, 201:9 [; Lfjf ~
PRESENT ¢; % %<
ms Houma MR. JUSTICE s.R..3A.:jNuka§ATu ' AA AV 1
ms scum: MR. zusncs A;5-weNt$é§i§Ay§VVL%EowoA%X
BETWEEN:
SRIGBASAVARAJU :
S/0 LATE SR} GAv1sI9I>=AIA:a;_:,, H V - '-
AGEB~AB'CL.!Ti43 YEA-Rs,~.,
R/AT?_NO.?_, 9m 'A'M.A1M_, M %
11TH CROSS, 4THV'B.Lt3CK',._ " _
r»2ANDI§::,_L;AYoU*{, BA:xIG;A;.G«9;§ 96.
A COMPLAINANT
- _ (édfssag. H K KE'N'c'HEGowDA, ADV.)
' A 1 SMTai3.F'£UNDATHI
ERESEDENT, ANANOA C(}~OPERATEVE BANK
.. LEMITED, HIS-29, N.V.ARCASDE IS"? CROSS,
'REID STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
HAVANODR CIRCLE, BANGA£.ORE-560 001,
2 SRI SRIKANTH L JATTAIAH
3 SECRETARY, ANANSA C0-OPERATIVE BANK
LIMITED, HIG~29, N.V.ARCASDE IS"? CROSS,
2ND STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARNAGAR,
HAVANOOR CIRCLE, SANGALORE-568 003..
...ACCUSED
(BY SR1. N RAMACHANDRA, ASV. FOR A}. SLAZ)
THIS ccc IS FILES unaea secnoms 12%ee»:j"r=%M1er%:%é
CONTEMPT OF coma": ACT PRAYINGWQ AINLJIATE-VIVCOVRTEMPT "
PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE AC(;Z§}SE§DeA.f1ANeeD'-DIRECT.___
ACCUSED T0 IMPLEMENT THE >0RDER'?AASSED efmrH*E 'H0N"m.E'ee.
STATE INFORMATION co:v1f:~kivzssI0r~:.e_ 'IN ""{;'0Mv9LA1NT"v
No.KIc/2850/com/2007, safe-9% 05'-2:.}"2'eo:i§ VZDE
ANNEXURE~'B' AA 'A
This CCC__having_:'beefi._ ifeser§'edj_..%his day, A.N.
VENUGOPA1.A'§ t}WI§__A .;,.,Ifima.déjtngfgsiiowing:
Thie »Tpe>§itv!.9I: has been filed under $5. 11
and 12 c:f the'cnefetnfit-..eVef.'Courts Act 1971 ('the Act» fer
shggft)' 11:0 Vi:i'it¥._:aVte eontempt proceedings against the
non-implementation of an order dated
by Karnataka Information Camrnission
('Cemrzjiss§§3n' fer short) in case No.KIC/2860/Com/2007
tefisirect the accused, to implement the said order.
A' 2. To appreciate the grievance raised in this
' V' "faetitien, few relevant facts may be noted:
/'
..r
Complainant was a member of Amanda Co-operative
Bank Limited, Sasaveshwaranagar, Havanset'_A'
Bangalore-'29. Accused are the President of
the said Bank. Compiainant iappiice:ti--oVn_;deteci
17.7.2807 to the secend accused Ss.d5{1')V; §(2)i'"an'd'a
19(1) of The Right to znfornfiatiegsn Act,V"2.t)CiE:.'-:('RiifIVVAct' for'
short) requesting to theiiletter dated
23.12.2006 addressed to'the.'EefVng.eI:oi'iié;V_'Water Supply and
Sanitary Bo.'-:."rci"«.;1ehd ic_op::ies': or itiofwrzxents such as, T.A.,
D.A. anidbeyments made to the first
accuseds filed a complaint before the
Cort:missio'n §ge.iVr?:--stA"the"'"second accused under 5. 18(1) of
Act, fora' direction to furnish copies of the '
"afo'rer§_'oticeVds...Ifecords. The Commission after inquiry in
has passed an order dated 5.12.2007
directing; the respondent (accused No.2 herein) to furnish
ithejreievant information on item No.1 and the information . V evailabie on the record in respect of item No.2 to the complainant, free of cost, within 15 days. Complainant submitted a copy of the said order to us: accused, along /.
with his representation dated 20.12.2007, seeking compliance. In response thereto, the second accusedsent a communication dated 20.12.2007 to the has been decided to present appeal before""'theviaoooiiate_ authority. Compiainant submitted; 3 'furt.vh'e_r -renireaentatioa dated 3.1.2098 seeking com.oiiance,iN«h.ich haying done, alleging wiifui disobtedience"of._V_ti*te'.= 'dated 5.12.2907 passed by the Co'rnrn'i'asio'ni'.and codtenéding that, to protect the status, digihnyi}arestigej;;a4nci majesty of the Courihtthis'o:etitiAoh4VVV'ha:s'oeen riiéd. Sri H.K.i(enchegowda, learned for 'Hither__c_ort1piainant, who contended that, the ' ;E:oVmrri_issi'oAn"'=stands on the same footing as that of a H *s't2'%3ordinateA't:=.C'ourt, the disobedience cornpiained of, faiis vviuth.in"Vi;he'definition of the s. 2(b) of the Act and therefore ntih-is Court has the power to take cognizance of the Zricontpiaint aiieged against the accused and committed by H them. He contended that, the provisions of S. 20 of the RTI Act is not efficacious in the matter of enforcement of 5 the Commission order dated 55.12.2007 and theV.--delay wouid defeat the very object of the Commission ihj':pa$s:i"itg the order and hence the accused shouid the act of committing contempt, vy'ith'~e ifuftheirjdiirectioin to it impiement the order without any A' it
4. Per contra, Sri N.Ra§h~a,ci1andra,~ counsel for the accused contended tihat, ,th.e~.!¥1"enagine Committee of the Bank has._decided.,:to..se_eifi_ refhedty,---egainst the said order of ..:ve'ece--$eery steps in that regard'v«.he'vf_e He further submitted that, there :V'wiifu_|v"disobedience, in view of the co_rfimi;_§1icatiohA'"dated.20.12.2i3{J7 sent to the compiainant. ' §§e§yi,eg,4"opford'van order dated 16.12.2608 passed by this ie'e"ntihih'ié} No.423/2058 (Civii) (T.Stinivasa Vs. J.3,4Prakashx), iearned counsei contended that, the V' tortterhipt petition is not meintainabie. points, arise for decision:
5. Considering the rival contentions, the following (1) Whether, for disobedience of the order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission, in exercise of the powe-r_s'~.and functions under Ss.18 and Act, zoos, the contempt peti'tion'tihd'eri't--hie Contempt of Courts"'A~:t, is~"umai'n'ta'inaoi.ie1?
(ii) Whether, the corriplaiimnt has _rnsAd{§---..o{I:_:a prima facie.»'case to..fr'amei.ci1arg_ve aj?gainstK the accused?
6. IfldiS§}L3'§a§3i;g(;:"th€i_VA[CQifi{$!.&i'i.ifit'.Qf the complainant filed before the Con2Amis'si.orrv'V._tvas*"avIio'§§e¢§" and a direction was to provide the relevant inforrnatiLonr. informed the compiainent that, adecis.ion ihasdheien 'taken to file an appeai against the said A¢.§:Vr't%erE';"ifirieyvance of the complainant is that, the said order ':a_sAbee'n'iV__wi.i:foiiy disobeyed by the accused, who should be defected' -togive effect to the same and punish them for A. It1oh--con1piiance.
7'. We have carefully perused the record and given "anxious consideration to the rivai contentions. For the )1 7 reasons recorded infra, the contempt petition is not maintainabie.
8. 5.220(1) of the RTI Act enabies the Comnziseiosn to impose on the respondent before it, a hundred and fifty rupees each day, tiii the_,iv:ntorrr;ati_on' furnished, subject to a total thousand rupees. Prior to the 4irn.position,',--".of'isiicii}tdfinek amount, it is mandatory thiat.:roasonatvie"'sovpportenity of' hearing must be Inforrnation 0fficer+frespon:d'eiVit,:i ».':I4'n*.:_a'ddit'ion, suia-vsection (2) thereof, enabies .,Co'inn1is'sion that, if the concerned Pubfic In_foilrn1a'tion nC}fficer,_.without any reasonabie cause and ' jpersistAenti~g:,"'*%1_as not furnished the information within the H 'tirne sper;.ifiejctonder sub-section (3.) of 5.7, to recommend forttidiscipiiniary action against the concerned Information A0ffi.cer," under the Service Rules appiicabie to him. The foroirisions contained in 5.29 of RTI Act shows that, the it "Commission has been conferred with the jurisdiction to penaiise the defauiting ofiicer by ievy of penaity up to a / total amount of Rs.25,000/- and also recon1ru1«en'€i:l~¥'oi*~~. discipiinaw action under the Service Ruies«--.ai:~pVlic~atsl.e the defauiting ofificer. Thus, it i$__<:iea'rin itself provides the procedurem-1_d retf'ae_cly.
9. s.2o of RTI Actproyztoogafoampenalties. ..1il:<:onfe:'s powers on the Commifasiion of which it can enforce its order}: ;3_ro'§.ri€$j?~'o.:ttfor constitution of the toilitnpose the penalties by way' the Statutory right to recornnneno for discipiinary action against StateVtAInfo"r'rnation Officer, itself has the nevgéssglfgvpotvers. ____ provisions, in the form of the ' ;:irov.i$ivo4nov.Contempt of Courts Act. It is cardinal gsrénciple of*;:n'tétpretation of Statute, well settled by catena of oestifione of the Apex Court, that, Courts or tribunals, V' ifnuat be heid to possess power to execute its own order. AA'i'«§u'rther, the RT: Act, which is a self-contained Code, even it has not been specifically speit out, must be deemed to have been conferred upon the Commission the power in E. order to make its erder effective, by having recourse to 5.20.
10. In the case of SAKIRE VASU vsi.¥V..'ie'rA'ije..[' UTTAR PRADESH, reported in (2oo.3)_'2 scci4ee'.i'iiti.has been held as follows:
18. It is well settledizhat web .a_ giver: to an authorii'£;:_V"ite_Vdouserhethihig it includes su.ch..._i'nci_de'réta--l'jéerci-replied'"powers which would"er:eu're.i:'»t:ne:'A';i.rei)er. doing of that thing. E71 ['dtheT-.._w6rd§,:t7" Qvhen any V _ ;:idvlséeVr...i.e'4exp.reeeiy granted by the statute, included in the grant, am ys)ithd~i.it'ei5eciai mention, every power and""eV\{e¥yfA.centro¥ the deniai of which ' \}ve_i2Ed rehder the grant itseif ineffective.
Act cgnferfirisdiggon it V A 'flLf;_,*,,.i.3'li,____Ve.g:_¥l'll»' also g_r_'§;;t_s_the newer of doing ail acts or e_;§plov §_L_i_ch means a_§__§{_g 1' gggggntiallv nece,§s_,_a,rv far it: execggjgg. it ":19. The reason for the rule (doctrine ef implied power) is quite apparent. Many matters of minor details are omitted frem iegislation. 'iv 10 As Crawford observes in his Construction (3'"" Edri.,p.267): 2 V' "...1r these details coulcihot be%'l5séléieé"iby1i«i implication, the draftinga..:of7..le§is!ation would be an interrhinaoie"'process.e.rid"th'ei"r V legislative intent"would likely' seiceieaea by a most;-~i;isignif§ca.ht. ornissiorn"...
26. In ascertainirigl lla':réec:e§§;£;$z_;sim§llcation, ifgl determines "the legislative lneiiqes ,i__t;_,*e_ffwettive. what is 1 ._Vnieoessariiy"'i'§:fip:lied is; as much part of the it likerle specifically written (Emphasis suppiied by us) it 'The bowielrs of the Commission to entertain and »AV:V'«--d:eci_de.~the__ complaints, necessariiy shows that, the the necessary power to adjudicate the 'ug"rieirar:(.es and decide the matters brought before it, in V " ~*terrrls of the provisions contained in the RTI Act. The lielgisletive will, in incorporating 5.20 in the RTI Act, conferring power on the Commission to impose the penalties, by necessary implication\is to enable the 3 1 § 11 Commission to do everything which is indispensabie for the purpose of carrying out the purposes in View contemplated under the Act. In our considered view, provisions o'r'=._S.2O can be exercised by the Commission also toV.yenforr§e'ivts order. The underlying object in Commission to impose the pena|'ty"'ar;_d'/or.;«to"yresofi other mode provided therein, caAnno't_tV_and >'sho'u§e':
construed only to the inciden't--sf/events 'priorto thnettpassihgtt' of an order by the Conn.m%ssio'n,':':jbht"'a.re a"!so'ih"e¥d of the ordern tttt thnehruwvcommission and its enforcenf;ent/execviitionyttaeV-'otherwise, the legislative wiil behind thetttéarsactrhent pets defeated.
it «tn the """" case of *r.sRzmvAsA (supra), the was that, an award passed by de,partment.a!:; arbitrator under the Karnataka Co--operatiye Soc¥e't.§e.s Act, 1959, was not complied with and that there f«sy_'y§ri!fui disobedience by the accused, against whom the Vvncontempt petition was filed. Considering the question of maintainabihty of the contempt petitiog: in View of the 12 avaiiabillty of the remedy under $.10?) (13) of the sziid Act and also taking into consideration an order Court in the case of K.3AcsozsH PONRAJ Aiii_lD""-C:)'fii'_i¥:i§;$"viii A. MUNIRAJU AND OTHERS :V.(JCM:mC»C"._1d.§-/1?bQ?._q.:(VCiVii.)} disposed of on 4.12.2068), was iheldgas foiliiwszv * it
9. The provision relates to the c--onsequen¢'e. of.tA_disobedi.em°:e or breach of injunction, avaiiabie in '_..i--njgnct'ign is providei' itggif, 'w'hich__i_n:"our view, has case of dAisobedie_n_¢'e_o.r brgatzht ' sheen. trhade * "
_ tg-flgrovide a"'sQe:edv inexpensive and VV;effec'tive"'v»fo.ru:¥i'"arid'to avoid rnultiolicitv of iitigatiioh' -._3_>;_Mefor4e'*«.._':LV"different fQ_[1.}'fi$. The A._i.egisiative_T~poiioiés and intendment should h§§:ce§_s_a_rAil'vrviA:eigh with l_,_2__§ in giving meanihgmi V interx:A§rei;_a__t:ion to thgprovision. We do not find ' sari"-,r_n_eiitraordinary case having been made out complainants, who are insisting for it ..initiai:Ion and prosecution of the proceedings . tinder the Act, than by availing the remedy provided under the Code. From the said perspective, taking into consideration the remedy provided under the Code, the complaint filed under the Act, for taking action for breach A 13 or disobedience of an order of temporary injunction made or granted by the subordine'te[ Court, is not permissible. In our view, wheinhthe smtiigordinate court itself has bfin s_e--iitit:;i_en'ti'y.T' empewggeg to deal with the §ituati.on;e~.Vvwh§:__i;e V there is disobedience or bre'aEh"of§t'he inj erder granted by it, the se'iw}e::'.fe'i*ure"sifio.£i|d aggroached for reiiefanda to see"thatiV'i§sV..'.ordogr_:_§ are honoured and give'n..;e3fe,_c§_;_t_<3_lratvhergthan seeking gunishment urid'erSgt,i;9_n 12éo'f"th'e Act.
i --. supplied) 4' oowers conferred upon the Cemmissibeuiiunder'VS-3,2G:_".~'éef the RTI Act, the compiainant hav_.v=,4?;,tio_l"seekV"'r'elief___thereunde;" and censeeeentiy, this »c;:VoetemAp't.e'p.etit_i_on is not rnaintainable. Paint I\io.(i) is enew'ere6'«'ecCjefdingly.
"1v3A." In View of the above finding, point Ne.(ii), does ._ne.;t_ survive for censideration.
In the result, we hold that, the compiaint is not rnaintainable and is dismissed accordingly, without prejudice to the right of the compieinant, to approach i/ 1' 14 Karnataka Information Commission, under S.2_Ci_:"d'f««t'r;-eé _ Act, for reiief. Ne costs.