Karnataka High Court
Shri K A Dayanand vs The Karnataka Information Commission on 6 September, 2018
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.48013/2012 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.48012/2012 (GM-RES)
In W.P.No.48013/2012
BETWEEN
SHRI K A DAYANAND
S/O J. APPAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT
MANGALORE
RESIDING AT NO.41,
ADC QUARTERS HATCH HILL,
LAL BAGH,
MANGALORE
PIN-575 001
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND
1.THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THIS
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
#14/3, ARVIND BHAVAN
(MITHIK SOCIETY), NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-01.
2
2.MOHANDAS SHETTY
FATHER'S NAME NOT
KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
AGE:MAJOR,
RESIDING AT SAGAR NIVAS,
YEYYADI, MANGALORE TALUK
MANGALORE
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT.
PIN-575 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.KALYANI AGARWAL, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI M.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.CHANDRU
& S SHEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ANNX-A DATED 25.9.12 PASSED BY R1 AND ETC.
In W.P.No.48012/2012
BETWEEN
SHRI K A DAYANAND
S/O.J.APPAJI GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DAKSHIN KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE.
RESIDING AT NO.41,
ADC QUARTERS, HATCH HILL,
LAL BAGH,
MANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI R NAGENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
3
AND
1.THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
REPRESENTED BY THIS
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
#14/3, ARVIND BHAVAN.
(MITHIK SOCIETY),
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.MOHANDAS SHETTY
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER,
AGE MAJOR,
RESIDING AT SAGAR NIVAS,
YEYYADI,
MANGALORE-575001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MS.KALYANI AGARWAL, ADVOCATE
FOR SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1,
SRI M.NAGESH, ADVOCATE FOR M/S.CHANDRU
& S SHEKAR, ADVOCATES FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ANNEXURE-A DATED 25.9.2012 PASSED BY FIRST RESPONDENT
AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
4
COMMON ORDER
R.DEVDAS J., ORAL:
The two petitions arise out of identical orders passed by the first respondent, Chief Information Commissioner, involving the same parties. Therefore, the matters are heard and disposed of together.
2. The petitioner was working as Additional Deputy Commissioner at Dakshina Kannada District, when the second respondent herein made an application on 30.07.2011 seeking information under the Right to Information Act (for short 'RTI Act'). Though the application was submitted on 30.07.2011, the application was dated 26.07.2011. Another application dated 27.07.2011 was also made by the second respondent to the petitioner seeking certain information. On 10.08.2011 a communication was sent by the petitioner calling upon the applicant to go over to his Office and identify the documents, of which, certified copies were sought.
5
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that such a communication was made because there was no clarity of the information sought. The second respondent seems to have addressed a letter dated 18.08.2011, making allegations against the petitioner and refusing to personally appear in the office of the petitioner, but he once again called upon the petitioner to supply the required information.
4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner once again verified from his office and found that though there was some discrepancy in the application made by the second respondent herein, on the basis of his inferences, the petitioner identified certain documents and called upon the second respondent herein to furnish a sum of Rs.432/- towards the required fee and to collect the information. This communication was made to the second respondent by letter dated 01.10.2011, The petitioner has received acknowledgement from the second respondent on 12.10.2011, evidencing the fact that the letter dated 01.10.2011 was received by the second respondent herein.
6
5. The second respondent herein, without replying to the letter dated 01.10.2011, nor paying the requisite fee for collecting the information sought, presented an appeal under Section 18(1) of the 'RTI Act', to the State Information Commission. On receipt of a notice from the first respondent- Chief Information Commissioner, the petitioner herein addressed a letter dated 18.04.2012 to the Secretary, Karnataka Information Commission, narrating the facts stated above and pleaded that the petitioner was not at fault. Thereafter, during the proceedings, the petitioner was called upon to furnish his written submission and accordingly, the petitioner has filed his written submissions, denying the allegations made by the second respondent herein.
6. On going through the material placed on record and the written submissions, the first respondent herein passed an order dated 25.09.2012 imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner for not providing the information within the stipulated period as provided under the RTI Act. Being aggrieved, the 7 petitioner is before this Court assailing the impugned order dated 25.09.2012 passed by the first respondent herein.
7. Heard Sri R.Nagendra Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Ms.Kalyani Agarwal, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri M.Nagesh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is perverse inasmuch as the first respondent could not have found fault with the petitioner who had communicated to the second respondent within 12 days from the date of receipt of the application, calling upon the second respondent to appear before the Office and identify the required documents. The learned Counsel further submits that this was necessitated because there was no clarity in the information sought by the second respondent. The learned Counsel specifically points out in the reply dated 18.04.2012 Annexure 'K' herein, which was communicated by the petitioner to the Secretary, Karnataka Information Commission, explaining the position by elaborately stating that the applicant had sought for 8 certified copy of the document RRT/SR/84/2006-07, while documents pertaining to the office of the Deputy Commissioner do not have the number "RRT/SR". In fact, the applicant has not even specified as to which Village or Taluk the information or document pertains to. Similarly, RRT/CR/1785/2005-06 was again misleading because for the year 2005-2006, the RRT/CR number stops at 179, while the information sought by the applicant bears the No."1785". Similar is the case with respect to the document CDS/LSD(1)PDR/130/07-08(B2), which is not available in the office of the Deputy Commissioner. It is in this background that the petitioner called upon the second respondent to personally appear in the office of the petitioner to identify the required documents.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that since the second respondent refused to assist the petitioner in identifying the required document and information, the petitioner was forced to use his discretion and take a guess as to the probable information sought by the second respondent. Based on this exercise, the petitioner 9 herein called upon the second respondent to pay Rs.432/- which was the prescribed fee towards 216 pages of information that was required by the second respondent.
10. The learned Counsel submits that till date, the second respondent has not paid the requisite fee and the petitioner was forced to supply the information during the proceedings before the first respondent.
11. The learned Counsel for the first respondent submits that the impugned order was passed on the basis of the written submission made by the petitioner. The learned Counsel submits that the information that is available at Annexure 'K', though addressed to the Secretary of the Karnataka Information Commission, was not available nor was it looked into before the impugned order was passed.
12. Learned Counsel for the second respondent has nothing much to submit except stating that the second respondent was harassed at the hands of the petitioner herein. The learned Counsel submits that the impugned order is 10 justified, since the required information was not provided to the second respondent within the stipulated period.
13. Having gone through the pleadings, documents on record and having heard the submissions of the learned Counsels, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner had made all the efforts to supply the required information to the second respondent. Had the second respondent co-operated with the petitioner in trying to identify the documents and information required, the information sought could have been provided to him well within the prescribed period.
14. 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 under Section 18 of the Act is supervisory in character whereas the procedure under Section 19 is an 11 appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving the information which he has sought for can only seek redressed in the manner provided in the statute, namely, by following the procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 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 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.
15. 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 petitions are accordingly allowed and the operation of the impugned order to the extent where penalty 12 of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the petitioner, is hereby quashed and set aside. No order as to costs.
SD/-
JUDGE JT/-