Karnataka High Court
Kriplani M vs The State Information Commissioner on 14 June, 2019
Author: Alok Aradhe
Bench: Alok Aradhe
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JUNE 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
WRIT PETITION NO.17446 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
KRIPLANI M
PROPRIETOR
M/S NEXT GEN TECHNOLOGIES
NO.863 7TH MAIN 3RD CROSS
HAL 2ND STAGE INDIRANAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 008.
... PETITIONER
(BY MR. B A BELLIAPPA, ADV. FOR
SMT. KALYANI AGARWAL, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
DR DEVARAJ URS ROAD
OPP WEST GATE NO.2 VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF
COMMERCIAL TAX
(ENFORCEMENT) SOUTH ZONE
VANIJYA THERIGE KARYALAYA-2
80 FT ROAD KORAMANGALA
BANGALORE - 560 047.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MR. SHARATH GOWDA G B., ADV.)
---
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
2
PASSED BY THE R-1 IN COMPLAINT DTD:2.2.2018 ANNEXURE-C;
AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
Mr.B.A.Belliappa, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Kalyani Agarwal for Mr.Sharath Gowda G.B., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the order dated 02.02.2018 passed by respondent No.1.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that the petitioner had filed an application on 05.08.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the State Information Officer seeking information. However, despite lapse of 3 53 days, the petitioner's application seeking information was not furnished. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an application under Section 18 of the Act before the State Information Commission. The State Information Commission by impugned order dated 02.02.2018 instead of examining the complaint of the petitioner directed him to avail of the remedy of appeal. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to Section 18 of the Act submitted that the State Information Commission was under a statutory obligation to entertain the complaint of the petitioner and to inquire the same. However, the State Information Commission has failed to perform its statutory duty and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain a 4 complaint under Section 18 of the Act and if information has been denied to a person, his remedy is to file an appeal under Section 19 of the Act. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in case of 'CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANR. VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR.', AIR 2012 SC 864.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. The relevant extract of Section 18 of the Act reads as under:
18. Powers and functions of Information Commissions.-
(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint form any person.-
(a) xxxxxx 5
(b) who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act.
6. From perusal of Section 18(1)(b) of the Act, it is evident that it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who has been refused access to any information. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner is denied access to the information. Therefore, the Commission was required to receive and inquire into the complaint from any person after conducting an inquiry into the complaint of such a person like the petitioner, the State Information Commission would have proceeded to deal with the matter under Section 20 of the Act. However, instead of entertaining the complaint filed by the petitioner, the complaint has been dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 20 of the Act. Thus, the State Information 6 Commission has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it by law. The impugned order suffers from jurisdictional infirmity. Therefore, the same cannot be sustained in the eye of law. So far as reliance placed by learned counsel for the respondent in case of CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER supra is concerned, the aforesaid case is a authority for the proposition that an order, which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be under Section 18 of the Act is an order of penalty provided under Section 20 of the Act. It has further been held that a person is not entitled to access information under Section 18 of the Act. However, the aforesaid decision is not a authority for the proposition that when a person who has been denied information makes a complaint under Section 18 of the Act, should not be entertained by the Commission. In case the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent is accepted, the same would be contrary to the expressed provision contained under 7 Section 18(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, the contention made by learned counsel for the respondent is sans substance and is misconceived the same is repealed.
7. In view of the preceding analysis impugned order dated 02.02.2018 passed By State Information Commissioner is hereby quashed. The State Information Commissioner is directed to inquire into the complaint submitted by the petitioner under Section 18(1)(b) of the Act and thereafter proceed to deal with the matter in accordance with law.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SS