Karnataka High Court
Sri. G. H. Sharanappa vs The Commissioner on 18 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE Mrs. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT PETITION No. 5474/2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI G.H. SHARANAPPA
S/O. LATE GADDE HANUMANTHAPPA,
AGE: 62 YEARS,
RTD. GOVT. SERVANT,
R/O. PLOT NO.202,
CREATIVE SURAJ APARATMENT,
NEAR VENKATESHWAR TEMPLE,
C.P.V. BLOCK,
GANGA NAGAR EXTENSION,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHANDRASHEKAR P. PATIL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER,
THE KARNATAKA STATE
INFORMATION COMMISSION,
(SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
GATE NO.2, 2ND FLOOR,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER
TRANSPORT & ROAD SAFETY
-2-
(FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY)
1ST FLOOR, 'A' BLOCK,
T.T.M.C. BUILDING,
K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 027.
3. THE ADDITIONAL TRANSPORT
COMMISSIONER (ADM.)
AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (PIO)
OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER FOR
TRANSPORT AND ROAD SAFETY,
1ST FLOOR, BMTC COMPLEX,
SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU - 27.
4. SMT. BASAVANTHAMMA
DIVORCED WIFE OF G.H. SHARANAPPA
D/O. ULLAGADDE PAMPANAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 5TH WARD,
SANGANAKAL POST,
TQ. & DIST: BALLARI - 583 101.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI K.S. ARUN, HCGP FOR R-2 & R-3;
SMT. D.S. AISHWARYA NAIR, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI NIKHIL K., ADVOCATE FOR R-4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 19.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F
AND ORDER DATED 19.11.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-F-1,
PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT DATED 30.12.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-G
AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.09.2017, VIDE
ANNEXURE-J AND ENDORSEMENT DATED 26.09.2017
VIDE ANNEXURE-J-1 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
-3-
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner under the caption writ petition has sought for a writ of certiorari seeking for quashing the Orders dated 19/11/2016 vide Annexures - F and F1, passed by 2nd respondent; Endorsements dated 30/12/2016, 26/09/2017 and 26/09/2017 vide Annexures - G, J and J-1 respectively issued by 2nd respondent and Endorsements dated 08/02/2017 and 08/01/2018 vide Annexures - H and L respectively issued by 1st respondent, whereby the 1st respondent
- Commissioner issued an endorsement holding that the petitioner is not entitled to file an appeal without exhausting the remedies under Sections 6(1) and 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("the RTI Act" for short).
-4-
2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are:
It is stated by the petitioner that, the 4th respondent being the divorced wife of the petitioner has approached the Public Information Officer ("PIO"), RTO Hospet, Bellary, under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, seeking certified copy of the salary certificate of the petitioner. The 4th respondent wife being unsuccessful for three times as the RTO had rejected the application on the ground that the information sought cannot be given to a third party as per Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Suppressing the above facts, the 4th respondent filed one more application again under section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking the property details and the service record of the petitioner contending that she is the wife of the petitioner. The 3rd respondent-Additional Transport Commissioner (Adm.) & Public Information Officer (PIO) again -5- rejected the application filed seeking the personal details and documents of the petitioner under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
3. Later, the 4th respondent-wife, filed first appeal before the 2nd respondent - Commissioner Transport & Road Safety, (first appellate authority), who in turn without looking into the previous orders without issuing notice to the petitioner, allowed the appeal vide order dated 19/11/2016 and directed the RTO, Hospet, to furnish the information sought by the 4th respondent.
4. Later, the petitioner filed review application before the 2nd respondent to recall the order dated 19/11/2016, wherein the 2nd respondent issued an endorsement dated 30/12/2016 holding that there is no provision under the RTI Act to recall its own order. This being so, the petitioner filed second appeal before -6- 1st respondent - Commissioner of the Karnataka State Information Commission (second appellate authority) under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act. The 1st respondent Commissioner by its order dated 08/02/2017 held that the appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act is not permissible without exhausting the remedy under Sections 6(1) and 19(1) of the RTI Act, the petitioner has preferred this petition.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Chandrashekar P.Patil would contend that the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent- Commissioner is contrary to the scope and spirit of Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The Commissioner has failed to consider that the first appeal was preferred by the 4th respondent under Section 19(1), wherein -7- the applications filed by the 4th respondent under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act, seeking the property details and the service records of the petitioner. The appeal proffered by the 4th respondent under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act was allowed without considering the earlier orders passed by the very authority rejecting to furnish the information as it relates to the third party and it is the personal information of the petitioner and according to the learned counsel the rejection of the application on the earlier occasions were justifiable and the 2nd respondent, having not been considered the earlier orders and without hearing the petitioner has resulted in the miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Learned counsel would further submit that the right of appeal is a valuable statutory right conferred upon the aggrieved person to appeal to a superior forum against the orders of an inferior forum, thus the order of the 2nd respondent -8- holding that the appeal under 19(3) filed by the petitioner is not sustainable and sought for setting aside the same by allowing the present writ petition.
7. Per contra, Smt. P.S. Aishwarya Nair appearing for Sri Nikhil K., learned counsel appearing for the 4th respondent would justify the order of the 1st respondent-Commissioner as well as the order passed by the 2nd respondent (first appellate authority) and would contend that the application seeking information is the documents consisting the property details and the service record, which are very essential for adjudication of the matter between the petitioner and the 4th respondent and thus, would contend that the petition filed seeking prayers as mentioned in the writ petition is not maintainable.
8. Sri Rajashekhar K., learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent - Commissioner (second -9- appellate authority) and the High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent Nos.2 and 3 would justify the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent - Commissioner and sought to dismiss the writ petition.
9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the point that arises for consideration is:
"Whether the endorsement dated 08/01/2018 vide Annexure-L issued by the 1st respondent- Commissioner is contrary to the scope and ambit of Sections 19(1) and 19(3) of the RTI Act?
10. This Court has carefully perused the material on record and writ papers as well as considered the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for the parties. The undisputed fact is that the 4th respondent - wife had sought for information pertaining to the petitioner - husband by filing an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act and having failed in her attempts in securing the property
- 10 -
details and the service record of the petitioner for the third time, the 4th respondent suppressing the previous orders, once again filed an application under Section 6(1) of the RTI Act seeking the very personal information about the present petitioner. The application filed by the 4th respondent being a personal document of the petitioner was rejected by the 3rd respondent - Additional Transport Commissioner (Adm.) & Public Information Officer (PIO) and thus, under provision of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act held that the information cannot be furnished. Aggrieved by the said order, first appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act was preferred before the 2nd respondent - Commissioner, Transport & Road Safety, (first appellate authority), by the 4th respondent. The 2nd respondent by its order dated 19/11/2016, allowed the appeal and directed the RTO
- 11 -
to furnish the information as sought by the 4th respondent.
11. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the order of the 3rd respondent, filed the application seeking to recall the order. However, the 2nd respondent issued an endorsement saying that no provision is provided under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act to recall its own order. Aggrieved by the order passed by the 2nd respondent, second appeal preferred by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the 1st respondent - Commissioner, Karnataka State Information Commission, issued an endorsement stating that without exhausting the remedies under Sections 6(1) and 19(1) of the RTI Act, the appeal is not maintainable. The relevant provisions of the RTI Act need to be considered in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
- 12 -
(i) Section 4 of the RTI Act speaks about the obligations of the public authorities and it is obligatory to furnish information to every citizen/person and the Act was enacted.
(ii) Section 6 of the RTI Act provides any person who desires to obtain any information under this Act shall make a request in writing or through electronic means. Such a request would be made in writing addressing to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may, or the concerned public authority, by specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her.
(iii) Section 7 of the RTI Act provides for disposal of the request provided that where the information sought for concerns the life or liberty of a
- 13 -
person, the same shall be provided within forty-eight hours of the receipt of the request.
(iv) The relevant portion of Section 8 of the Act reads as under:
8. Exemption from disclosure of information.--(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,--
Xxxxxxxx Provided further that those matters which come under the exemptions specified in this section shall not be disclosed;
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information:
(Underlining by me) Personal information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, and disclosure of information would be only if the authority
- 14 -
concerned is satisfied that it is in the public interest and not otherwise, making it clear that the provision of Section 8(1)(j) are applicable to disclosure of such information that justifies larger public interest.
12. Section 18 of the RTI Act provides the powers and function of the information commissions having supervisory under the Act to entertain such complaint, limited to hold such enquiry into such complaints, and if there is necessary to impose penalty on Information Officer if information given is incomplete, misleading or false or the conduct of information is found to be not bona fide.
13. Section 19 deals with appeals, which reads as under:
"19. Appeal.- (1) Any person who, does not receive a decision within the time specified in sub- section (1) or clause (a) of sub-section (3) of section 7, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public
- 15 -
Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, may within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such a decision prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer as the case may be, in each public authority:
Provided that such officer may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of thirty days if he or she is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(2) Where an appeal is preferred against an order made by a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under section 11 to disclose third party information, the appeal by the concerned third party shall be made within thirty days from the date of the order.
(3) A second appeal against the decision under sub-section (1) shall lie within ninety days from the date on which the decision should have been made or was actually received, with the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission:
- 16 -
Provided that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may admit the appeal after the expiry of the period of ninety days if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time.
(4) If the decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, against which an appeal is preferred relates to information of a third party, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give a reasonable opportunity of being heard to that third party.
(5) In any appeal proceedings, the onus to prove that a denial of a request was justified shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, who denied the request.
(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-
section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from
- 17 -
the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.
(7) The decision of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall be binding.
(8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to--
(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including.-
(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;
(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;
(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;
(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;
- 18 -
(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;
(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 4;
(b) require the public authority to compensate the complainant for any loss or other detriment suffered;
(c) impose any of the penalties provided under this Act;
(d) reject the application.
(9) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall give notice of its decision, including any right of appeal, to the complainant and the public authority.
(10) The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall decide the appeal in accordance with such procedure as may be prescribed."
(Underlining by me) Section 19 unfolds in two parts: The first part states that any person who does not receive any decision within the time specified in sub-section(1) or
- 19 -
clause (a) of sub-section (3) of sub-section (7) and the second part is that, any person aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer can prefer an appeal to such officer who is senior in rank. Sub-section (3) of Section 19 states that the second appeal is provided against the decision under sub-section (1) of Section 19.
14. The procedure contemplated under Section 19 is an appellate procedure. A right of appeal is always a creature of the statute. It is valuable statutory right conferred upon an aggrieved person to enter a superior forum for invoking its aid and interposition to correct error of the inferior forum, which is a very valuable right. Therefore, when the statute confers such a right of appeal, that must be exercised by a person who is aggrieved. One aspect is clear that the statute confers the right of appeal to be exercised by
- 20 -
any person aggrieved not confining itself to the refusal or reason to furnish.
15. When a specific remedy is available to the aggrieved party under the Act to prefer an appeal under sub-Section (1) and second appeal under sub- Section (3) of Section 19, in view of specific provision, the Commissioner is not justified in issuing the endorsement to the effect that the petitioner has not exhausted the remedy under Sections 6(1) and 19(1) of the RTI Act, defeating the very provisions of the Act. This Court accepts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and comes to the conclusion that the appeal under sub-clause (3) of Section 19 of the Act can be filed by the petitioner and the endorsement issued by the 1st respondent is not sustainable.
- 21 -
16. Accordingly, the endorsement dated 08/01/2018 at Annexure-L issued by the 1st respondent is not sustainable and the same is quashed. The point raised for consideration is answered accordingly. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the prayer in (a) and (b) of the writ petition is to be urged before the competent authority in the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act.
17. In view of the above discussion, this Court pass the following order:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed in part.
(ii) The order dated 08/02/2017 bearing No.Ka.Maa.R/2154/2156/GRR/2017 vide Annexure -
H and endorsement dated 08/01/2018 bearing No.Ka.Maa.Aa/42282, 42291/GRR/2017 dated 08/01/2018 vide Annexure - L is hereby quashed.
- 22 -
(iii) The 1st respondent is directed to reconsider the appeal filed by the petitioner under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act on merits as observed above, in accordance with law bearing in mind the provisions of the Act while issuing or furnishing the information, within a span of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(iv) It is needless to observe that all the contentions are kept open.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed.
SD/-
JUDGE S*