Smt Saroja vs Sri B N Chandrappa on 11 June, 2012

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt Saroja vs Sri B N Chandrappa on 11 June, 2012

Bench: H.N. Nagamohan Das

                            1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF JUNE, 2012

                       BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.N. NAGAMOHAN DAS

                W.P.No.19637/2009(S-RES)

 BETWEEN:

 SMT.SAROJA,
 W/O J.K.KURUBAR
 AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
 TAHASILDAR AND PIO
 TALUK OFFICE, KADUR TALUK
 CHIKMANGALUR DISTRICT.
                                      ..PETITIONER

 (By SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADV.)

 AND:

 1. SRI B.N.CHANDRAPPA
 S/O LATE NANJAPPA
 BANDIKOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI
 KADUR TAULK
 CHIKMANGALUR DISTRIT.

 2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
 3RD FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE
 REPT. BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.
                                      .RESPONDENTS
 (By SMT.MANJULA R.KAMADALLI, HCGP FOR R2.)
                              2




       THIS WRIT PETITION FILED U/A 226 & 227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE
ORDER      PASSED    BY   THE     KARNATAKA STATE
INFORMATINO COMMISSION IN KIC 698 PTN 2009 DATED
28.05.2009 AS PER ANEX-D AND ETC.

      This petition coming on for hearing, this day, the court
made the following;

                             ORDER

In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.5.2009, Annexure-D passed by the second respondent under the provisions of Right to Information Act.

2. In the year 2009, petitioner was working as Tahsildar of Kadur Taluk. First respondent made an application requesting the petitioner to furnish certain information. On the basis of information sought for by the first respondent, petitioner notified to pay additional fee of Rs.95/-. Accordingly, on 15.1.2009, first respondent paid the additional fee of Rs.95/-. It was obligatory on the part of the petitioner to furnish information 3 within 30 days from the date of receipt of additional fee from the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to furnish the information within the stipulated time, the first respondent filed a complaint before the second respondent - State Information Commissioner. After issue of show cause notice by the second respondent petitioner furnished information on 9.4.2009. Thus on the face of it there was inordinate delay in furnishing the information. Consequently, the second respondent Commission passed the impugned order levying penalty of Rs.4000/-. Hence this writ petition.

4. Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.

5. The explanation of the petitioner that he was incharge of additional responsibility of preparing the voters list and as such the information was not furnished within time is not substantiated by placing acceptable evidence on record. The commission by considering this explanation held that additional 4 work entrusted to the petitioner cannot be a ground to delay in furnishing information. Further it is only after a notice was issued by the commission, the petitioner furnished the information sought for. In the circumstances, the commission levied penalty on the petitioner. The penalty so levied is not arbitrary. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the same. However, the impugned order of penalty shall not come in the way of promotional prospects of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE.

DKB

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court