Karnataka High Court
Sri Davalsab M Miyanavar vs Karnataka Information Commission on 25 September, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
WRIT PETITION NO. 101260 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI DAVALSAB M. MIYANAVAR
AGE. 41 YEARS
OCC. EDITOR
PARIVARTHANA JAGATHU
PAKSHIKA PATRIKE
R/O 34/2, SARVODAYA NAGAR
BENGERI, HUBBALLI
DIST. DHARWAD-580 023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VISHWANATH S. BICHAGATTI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
MAHITI SOUDHA, DEVRAJ URS ROAD
NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE-2
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/PDO
BELAVATAGI GRAMA PANCHAYATHI
BELAVATAGI
TQ. NAVALAGUNDA
DIST. DHARWAD-582 208.
2
3. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY/
THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
NAVALAGUNDA TALUK PANCHAYATHI
NAVALAGUNDA TQ
DIST. DHARWAD-582 208.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.DAYANAND BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR C/R1, R2 AND R3)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT IN THE NAUTE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER
APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS QUASHING THE
IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.08.2023 PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT AT ANNEXURE-A IN APPEAL BEARING NO.
KIC/5592/APL/2022 C/W CASES AS SHOWN IN THE ANNEXURE-
A TO N OF THE SAID ORDER BEFORE KARNATAKA
INFORMATION COMMISSION.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 16.07.2024, THIS DAY ORDER WAS
PRONOUNCED THEREIN, AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
3
C.A.V. ORDER
The petitioner filed applications under Section 6(1) of
the Right to Information Act, 2005 ( for short "RTI Act")
seeking information from various public authorities across
14 departments in different districts of Karnataka. After not
receiving any response to these applications, the petitioner
filed appeals before the First Appellate Authority/Executive
Officer, Navagul, alleging non-compliance with Section 6(1)
of the RTI Act. Since no information was provided during
the appeal process either, the petitioner subsequently filed
second appeals before the Karnataka Information
Commission (KIC), the first respondent. The State Chief
Information Commissioner, considering the significant
number of appeals, exercised the powers conferred under
the RTI Act and constituted a full bench to hear all the
appeals.
4
2. The petitioner was notified via registered post
about the hearing scheduled for 26.07.2023. While the
petitioner remained absent, their counsel appeared, filed a
vakalatnama, and requested time to submit arguments.
After hearing the second appeals, the full bench framed the
following key issues:
(i) Whether there is sufficient evidence to show that
the appellant is misusing the provisions of the RTI
Act?
(ii) Whether there is material on record indicating a
lack of bona fides on the appellant's part in filing these
second appeals?
(iii) Whether any directions in these appeals would
adversely affect administrative efficiency or
disproportionately divert the resources of the public
authorities concerned?
(iv) Whether the second appeals listed in Annexures
'A' to 'N' are maintainable under the law?
(v) Whether there are reasonable grounds to
proceed further with these second appeals?
(vi) What order is appropriate?
5
3. After examining the records, the bench
concluded that the petitioner had clearly misused and
abused the provisions of the RTI Act. The bench noted that
the petitioner, who identifies as an RTI activist, sought
irrelevant information through reckless appeals. The bench
made a positive finding that the petitioner had abused the
RTI Act, and further detailed the nature of the information
sought by the petitioner from various government
departments across multiple districts.
4. The petitioner had filed RTI applications in
several districts, including Bagalkot, Bellari, Badami,
Bijapur, Bengaluru Urban, Chamrajnagar, Chickmangalur,
Chitradurga, Chikkabellapur, Davanagere, Dharwad,
Dakshin Kannada, Gadag, Hassan, Haveri, Shivamogga,
Kalaburagi, Kolar, Kodagu, Mandya, Tumkur, Udupi, Uttar
Kannada, and Vijayapura. In total, the petitioner filed 3,736
RTI applications in the Rural Development and Panchayath
Raj Department alone, followed by 964 appeals against the
6
Public Works and National Highways Department, 492
against the Department of Horticulture, and numerous
other appeals across different departments, as detailed in
the case.
5. The bench observed that there are 42,898
pending cases before the Commission and relied on several
landmark Supreme Court judgments to support its
reasoning, including:
1. CBSE & Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay &
Others (2011) 8 SCC 497
2. Subrata Roy Sahara vs. Union of India (2014)
SCC 470
3. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs.
Shaunak H. Satya (2011) 8 SCC 781
4. Shail Sahni vs. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. 2014 SCC
OnLine Del 558
5. CPIO, Supreme Court of India vs. Subhash
Chandra Agarwal (2020) 5 SCC 481
6. Canara Bank vs. Shyam (2018) 11 SCC 426
7
7. Girish Ramchandran Deshpande vs. Central
Information Commissioner & Ors. (2013) 1 SCC
212
8. Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative Officer
& Others (2010) 2 SCC 1
6. Referring to these judgments, the bench
concluded that public authorities are not obligated to supply
the information sought by the petitioner. The bench further
held that the petitioner had abused the RTI Act as a tool,
acting without bonafide intent, and noted that entertaining
such applications would harm administrative efficiency and
burden public resources. As a result, all the appeals were
dismissed.
7. Aggrieved by this common order, the petitioner
filed a writ petition challenging the dismissal of 9,646
appeals. However, the office raised an objection, stating
that the petitioner had not paid the required court fees
amounting to Rs.9,64,600/-. When questioned by the court,
8
the petitioner expressed an inability to pay the court fees
and indicated a desire to withdraw the petition.
8. Heard the counsel for petitioner and counsel
appearing for respondent.
9. The petitioner, claiming to be an RTI activist,
filed multiple applications under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act
across various districts in Karnataka, seeking information
from a wide range of public authorities. These applications
were filed in departments such as Rural Development,
Agriculture, Public Works, Energy, and Water Resources,
among others. Despite having filed thousands of cases with
the KIC, the petitioner claimed to have received no
substantive response from these authorities, leading him to
file second appeals.
10. The sheer volume of appeals filed by the
petitioner prompted the State Chief Information
Commissioner to constitute a full bench to address the
9
matter. During the hearings, it was found that the
petitioner's applications and appeals were overwhelming in
number, lacked specificity, and appeared to be filed without
any genuine cause, which raised concerns of abuse of the
RTI Act.
11. The full bench of the KIC formulated several
points for consideration, including whether the petitioner
had misused the RTI Act, whether his applications lacked
bona fides, and whether allowing such appeals would
disproportionately burden public authorities and adversely
affect administrative efficiency. After examining the record,
the bench observed that the petitioner had indeed misused
the provisions of the RTI Act. The commission found that
the petitioner had filed thousands of applications seeking
voluminous and irrelevant information without a clear
rationale, thereby abusing the process intended to promote
transparency and accountability.
10
12. The commission cited the Supreme Court
judgment in CBSE & Another vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay
& Others1, where it was held that the right to information
is not an unbridled right and that frivolous or vexatious
applications could be rejected. In the present case, the
commission found that the petitioner's conduct
demonstrated a reckless disregard for the spirit of the RTI
Act, with applications being filed solely to burden the public
authorities.
13. The RTI Act is a tool designed to empower
citizens by providing access to information held by public
authorities. However, several judicial pronouncements have
recognized the potential for misuse of the Act. The Supreme
Court, in Khanapuram Gandaiah vs. Administrative
Officer and Others2, emphasized that the RTI Act should
not be used as a means of harassment or to serve personal
vendettas. It was held that the Act is not meant to facilitate
1
(2011) 8 SCC 497
2
(2010)2 SCC 1
11
fishing inquiries into irrelevant or frivolous matters. The
petitioner in the present case filed thousands of RTI
applications and appeals, many of which sought irrelevant
information, thereby misusing the Act as a tool of
harassment.
14. Similarly, in Institute of Chartered
Accountants of India vs. Shaunak H. Satya3, the
Supreme Court reiterated that the purpose of the RTI Act is
to secure access to information that is in the public interest
and should not be employed to flood public authorities with
frivolous queries, which would divert their attention and
resources from their core functions.
15. Further, the Delhi High Court in Shail Sahni vs.
Sanjeev Kumar & Ors.4, observed that the RTI Act should
not be misused by filing multiple and repeated applications
that serve no public purpose. The court held that misuse of
3
(2011) 8 SCC 781
4
2014 SCC Online Del. 558
12
the Act amounts to an abuse of the legal process and can
be discouraged through appropriate judicial intervention.
16. In the present case, the KIC found that the
petitioner's actions mirrored the concerns highlighted in
these judgments. By filing 9,646 second appeals and
burdening multiple departments with irrelevant and
unnecessary queries, the petitioner had misused the
provisions of the RTI Act to such an extent that it impeded
the efficiency of the administration. The commission, citing
these judicial precedents, rightly dismissed the appeals on
the grounds of abuse of the Act.
17. One of the key issues considered by the KIC was
the adverse impact of the petitioner's actions on the
functioning of public authorities. The commission observed
that allowing such frivolous applications and appeals would
divert the limited resources of public authorities and impair
their ability to efficiently discharge their duties. This
13
observation is supported by the Supreme Court's ruling
in Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court
of India vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal5, wherein it was
held that while the RTI Act is a powerful instrument, it
should not result in disproportionately burdening public
resources or obstructing administrative functioning.
18. The present case is a classic example of how
indiscriminate use of the RTI Act can adversely affect public
administration. The petitioner's actions, if allowed to
continue, would not only waste valuable public resources
but would also delay the processing of genuine RTI
applications filed by citizens seeking information in good
faith.
19. Upon considering the facts and circumstances of
this case, along with the relevant judicial precedents, this
Court is of the opinion that the petitioner has clearly
misused the provisions of the RTI Act. The petitioner's
5
(2020) 5 SCC 481
14
conduct in filing thousands of RTI applications across
multiple departments, without any legitimate reason or
cause, constitutes an abuse of the process of law. The
petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition without
paying the requisite court fees is not acceptable, as it would
set a dangerous precedent and encourage further misuse of
the RTI Act.
20. In light of the petitioner's failure to pay the
requisite court fees, and considering the abuse of the legal
process in this case, this Court is not inclined to entertain
the petitioner's request to withdraw the writ petition
without addressing the deficit court fee. Allowing such a
withdrawal would set a harmful precedent and could
encourage others to misuse legal provisions without facing
any consequences. The writ petition is devoid of merits and
is liable to be dismissed. The order under challenge does
not warrant interference at the hands of this court.
15
21. The registry is directed to take necessary steps
to recover the deficit court fee of Rs. 9,64,600/- from the
petitioner in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be
liable to pay the entire deficit amount as per the objections
raised by the office of this Court.
22. In view of the above, this Court proceeds to pass
the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is dismissed.
(ii) The registry is directed to initiate appropriate proceedings for recovery of the deficit court fees from the petitioner.
(iii) There shall be no order as to costs.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE *ALB/-.