Karnataka High Court
P Dayanand vs State Information Commissioner on 7 September, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.21862 OF 2011 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN
P. DAYANAND
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
S/O PAP REDDY
OFFICE OF THE ADDITIONAL
COMMISSIONER (SOUTH ZONE)
9TH CROSS, 9TH MAIN
JAYANAGAR II BLOCK
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. T P VIVEKANANDA, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
GATE NO.2, II & III FLOOR
M.S.BUILDING
BANGALORE-560001.
2. P.KALIDAS REDDY
MAJOR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER
R/AT NO.8, KALLAHALLI
RANGAPPA BLOCK
BANGALORE.
2
3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
& ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (WELFARE)
BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE
N. R. SQUARE
BANGALORE-560002.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI.G. NAGARAJULU NAIDU, ADVOCATE FOR R3,
R2 IS SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH
THE ORDER DATED 1.4.2011 PASSED BY THE R1,
KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSIONER IN PROCEEDINGS
BEARING NO.KA.MA.AA.7217/DOORU/10 AT ANNEXURE-L
AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
This petition arises out of orders passed by the first respondent-State Information Commissioner. The petitioner was working as Public Information Officer and Welfare Officer, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, South Zone, Bangalore. He was appointed as Public 3 Information Officer by notification dated 04.05.2010. The second respondent-P.Kalidas Reddy, made an application on 31.03.2010 before the Joint Director, (Welfare), Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act'). The said application was forwarded to the predecessor of the petitioner with a direction to furnish the information by 15.04.2010. The petitioner contends that his predecessor had furnished the required information on 20.04.2010. Thereafter, the second respondent filed first appeal under the RTI, Act, before the Additional Commissioner, BBMP (West), alleging that he had filed the application seeking information on 31.03.2010 and he received the information through post on 15.05.2010, which is beyond the time stipulated under RTI, Act. It was also alleged that the second respondent was asked to pay fee of Rs.86/-, which is in violation of the Act. The First appeal was filed on 19.05.2010.4
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Additional Commissioner, appellate authority, called upon the petitioner to furnish the complete information to the second respondent. Accordingly, the petitioner has once again furnished the required information along with a covering letter dated 03.06.2010. It is submitted that the second respondent had allegedly filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of the RTI, Act, before the Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore, on 11.05.2010.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner herein was not arrayed as party-respondent in the complaint, before the Karnataka Information Commission, the Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to appear in person on the date of hearing. Before the date of hearing, the third respondent addressed a letter to the Information Commissioner stating that on 25.06.2010 information was furnished to 5 the second respondent free of cost and hence, there was no need to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. But the first respondent proceeded to adjudicate the complaint filed by the second respondent and directed personal appearance of the petitioner.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Information Commissioner did not accept the explanation offered by the petitioner and went ahead in passing the impugned order dated 01.04.2011, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner and directed the petitioner to furnish the complete information free of cost within 15 days. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 01.04.2011 passed by the first respondent.
5. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner assumed office of the Public Information Officer nearly 34 days after the application 6 was made by the second respondent. The State Information Commissioner never gave an opportunity to the petitioner to explain the situation.
6. Be that as it may, attention of this Court was drawn to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and another Vs. State of Manipura & Another reported in AIR 2012 SC 864; wherein their Lordships have held that the remedy for a person who had sought information and was refused information, was to make an appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act. Their Lordships have held that the nature of power exercised under Section 18 of the RTI Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for, can only seek redressal in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure laid down under Section 19 of the RTI Act. 7 Section 7 read with Section 19 of the RTI Act provides a complete statutory mechanism to a person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get the information by following the aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of the RTI Act, serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. While holding so, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified the position that an appeal under Section 18 of the Act cannot be filed before the Chief Information Officer. In the instant case, a complaint is filed under Section 18(1) of the Act. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the complaint made by the second respondent herein is not sustainable.
6. In the light of the discussions made above, this Court is of the opinion that the penalty imposed on the petitioner cannot be sustained. The petition is accordingly 8 allowed and the operation of the impugned order to the extent where penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed on the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE DL