Karnataka High Court
M K Solabeshwarappa vs A R S Kumar on 11 September, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R. Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.44942 OF 2012 (GM-RES )
BETWEEN
M. K. SOLABESHWARAPPA
S/O SHANKARAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER &
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
& PRESENTLY WORKING AS ASSISTANT
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
SESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION,
SESHADRIPURAM,
BANGALORE-560020.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. A.R.S. KUMAR
SWAMY VIVEKANANDA RESEARCH
CENTRE FOR SOCIAL & POLITICAL
REFORMS,
NO.62, 6TH CROSS, S.R.NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560027.
2. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
(COURT HALL NO.5),
NO.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN,
-2-
MYTHIC SOCIETY BUILDING,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER &
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
CHICKPET SUB-DIVISION,
CHICKPET, BANGALORE-560052.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. M.HEMALATHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
MISS. KALYANI AGARWAL, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI.G.B. SHARATH GOWDA FOR R2,
SRI. R.B. SATHYANARAYANA SINGH, AGA FOR R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
THE ENTIRE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, QUASH ANNEXURE-F DATED 6.9.2012
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AUTHORITY HOLDING
THE SAME IS ILLEGAL, AGAINST LAW, WITHOUT
JURISDICTION, ARBITRARY IN NATURE AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Sheshadripuram Sub-Division, Bangalore, and was designated as 'Public Information -3- Officer' under the Right to Information Act, 2005, ('RTI Act' for short). The first respondent made an application under the 'RTI Act' on 22.09.2011 seeking certain information. The information sought for is as follows:
"a) The List of Catalog and Index of the records/files maintained under Section 4(1)(a) of the RTI Act.
b). The Details of information declared suo-
moto under Section 4(1)b of the act.
3. Period for which information is requested: Since from date of establishment of police station to the till date."
2. The petitioner is said to have sent a letter dated 28.10.2011, dispatched on 29.10.2011 to the first respondent herein, furnishing the information. Not being satisfied, first respondent approached the Karnataka Information Commission by filing a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. Notice was issued by the Under -4- Secretary to the Karnataka Information Commission, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action should not be initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The petitioner seems to have explained to the Commission that the required information was given to the first respondent on 29.10.2011.
3. It is submitted by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner, that though the required information was furnished, the Information Commissioner held that the petitioner failed to provide complete information within the stipulated period. The Information Commissioner has held that even after summons were issued to the petitioner, he has failed to provide the information. It was also held that the information furnished by the petitioner is not the information sought for by the first respondent herein. The Information Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner, passed an order dated 06.09.2012 imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- -5- on the petitioner for not providing the information within the stipulated period as provided under RTI, Act. In the meanwhile, the successor in office of the Public Information Officer has provided another set of information to the first respondent along with a covering letter dated 16.08.2012.
4. 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 -6- 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. 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.
-7-
5. 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 allowed and the operation of the impugned order to the extent where penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE DL