Karnataka High Court
Nagendra Prasad K vs Sri A R S Kumar on 19 December, 2013
Author: A.N.Venugopala Gowda
Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2013
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA
WRIT PETITION NO.3936/2012 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
NAGENDRA PRASAD K
S/O KALAIAH H.D.
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
SAKALESHAPURA SUB-DIVISION
SAKALESHAPURA
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
OFFICER OF SPECIAL DUTY
TO THE HON'BLE MINISTER FOR
ENERGY, FOOD AND
CIVIL SUPPLIES & CONSUMER AFFAIRS
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
3RD FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE - 560 001.
RESIDING AT NO.348, C.Q.A.L. LAYOUT
SAHAKARA NAGAR
BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI ZAMEER PASHA, ADV. FOR
SRI R.KOTHWAL, ADV.)
AND:
1. SRI A.R.S.KUMAR
FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO
THE PETITIONER
2
AGE MAJOR
RESIDING AT NO.62, 6TH CROSS
SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 027.
2. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
NO.14/3, ARAVINDA BHAVAN
MYTHIC SOCIETY BUILDING
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A.R.S.KUMAR, R-1 - PARTY-IN-PERSON
SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADV. FOR
M/S. SHARATH & ASSTS, ADVS. FOR R-2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 8.12.2011 PASSED
BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 VIDE ANNEXURE-M AND
GRANT AN INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION,
EFFECT, IMPLEMENTAION AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS OF THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2011 PASSED
BY THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION VIDE
ANNEXURE-M.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura Sub-Division, Hassan District. Respondent No.1 filed an application dated 25.08.2010 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and sought providing of certified copies of the entire file 3 pertaining to MR No.13/2013 and also the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner on 10.08.2009 and 16.01.2010. The said application was received in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura Sub-Division on 28.08.2010.
2. Respondent No.1 filed complaint under Section 18 of the Act, before the Karnataka State Information Commission, to direct the Assistant Commissioner, Sakaleshpura Sub-Division, to provide the complete information sought in the application dated 25.08.2010 and impose penalty as per Section 20 of the Act for the failure to provide the information sought. Notice of the said compliant was issued to the petitioner on 16.06.2011.
3. The petitioner asserts that he furnished, on 25.06.2011, by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due, the information sought by respondent No.1, as per the application dated 25.08.2010, received by his office on 28.08.2010. An order dated 11.07.2011 was passed by 4 the Commission, which appears to be in exercise of the power under Section 18 of the Act. The Commission having passed an order dated 08.12.2011, as at Annexure-M, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner, feeling aggrieved this writ petition has been filed to quash the order, as at Annexure-M and for grant of consequential reliefs.
4. Heard the learned Advocates on both sides and perused the writ petition record.
5. Complaint having been filed under Section 18 of the Act on 01.10.2010 against the petitioner, after issuing notice dated 16.06.2011, order dated 11.07.2011 was passed, which appears to be in exercise of the power conferred under Section 18 of the Act by the Commission. On account of the failure of the petitioner to act in terms of the order dated 11.07.2011, the impugned order levying penalty of Rs.25,000/- has been passed against the petitioner.
5
6. In the case of CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANR. vs. STATE Of MANIPUR AND ANR., AIR 2012 SC 864, an application under Section 6 of the Act for obtaining information from the State Information Commissioner relating to magisterial enquiries conducted by the Government of Manipur from 1980-2006 was submitted. Alleging no response, a complaint under Section 18 of the Act was filed before the State Information Commissioner, who by an order dated 30.05.2007, directed the furnishing of information within 15 days and the same was questioned by filing the writ petition. Another compliant having been filed for obtaining similar information, alleging failure of furnish the information, an order dated 14.08.2007, directing the disclosure of information sought for within 15 days having been passed, the same was challenged by filing another writ petition. Both the writ petitions having been dismissed and the writ appeals filed their against having also been dismissed holding that under Section 18 of the Act, the 6 Commission has no power to direct the respondent to furnish the information and further holding that such a power has already been conferred under Section 19(8) of the Act on the basis of the exercise under Section 19 only and that the direction to furnish information is without jurisdiction and directed the Commissioner to dispose of the complaint, in accordance with law, the complainant approached the Apex Court for relief. The Apex Court considering the record, rival contentions and the relevant provisions of the statute, has held as follows:
"30. It has been contended before us by the respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under 7 Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide.
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
7. In the instant case, the State Information Commission has committed error in passing the order dated 11.07.2011 and directing the petitioner/Public Information Officer to furnish within 15 days the information sought, by registered post acknowledgment due. The said order being contrary to the decision of the Apex Court, noticed supra, cannot be upheld.
8. The impugned order shows that the penalty of Rs.25,000/- was levied on the petitioner mainly on account of non-compliance of the order passed on 8 11.07.2011. Since one of the reasons to levy the penalty is the non-compliance of the order dated 11.07.2011, in my opinion, the impugned order is vitiated. It is likely that the reason for levy of penalty is only on account of non-compliance of the order passed on 11.07.2011. However, it is for the State Information Commission to take into consideration the relevant aspects and decide the matter afresh, keeping in view the ratio of the decision, noticed supra.
In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is quashed. However, the case is remanded to the second respondent - Karnataka State Information Commission for decision afresh by keeping in view the observations made supra and in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Karnataka State Information Commission on 18.01.2014 and receive further orders. The Commission shall decide the case expeditiously and 9 within a period of four weeks from the date of first appearance of the parties.
Contentions of both parties are kept open for consideration and decision by the Karnataka State Information Commission.
No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE ca