IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.12591 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
B.N. NYAMEGOWDA S/O LATE NANDIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE HALASURU GATE SUB-DIVISION CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD BANGALORE-560001.
(BY SRI. P.H. VIRUPAKSHAIAH, ADV.,) AND:
1. M. NAGARAJ S/O LATE H. MUNILAKSHMAIAH AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS C/O RAJAGOPAL DODDABELAVANGALA DODDABALLAPUR TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
2. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION (COURT HALL NO.3) GATE NO.2, III FLOOR M S BUILDINGS DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560001.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A. DHARMESH, ADV., FOR SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B. ADV., FOR R2 R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS. QUASH THE ANNX-J DATED 11.10.12 PASSED BY TEH R2 HOLDING THE SAME IS ILLEGAL ANGAINST LAW. GRANT AN AD- INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE EXECUTION ENFORCEMENT AND IMPLEADING OF ANNX-J DATED 11.10.12 PASSED BY TEH R2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. P.H.Virupakshaiah, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.A.Dharmesh, learned counsel for Sri.Sharath Gowda G.B., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of order dated 11.10.2012 passed by respondent No.2 in the proceedings under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’ for short), by which penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner for not furnishing the information within time.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of the writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 submitted an application to the office of the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru seeking information under RTI Act on 03.06.2011. The aforesaid application was received on 14.06.2011. However, information as sought for by respondent No.1 was supplied to him on 28.04.2012. Thus, there was delay on the part of the petitioner in supplying the information. However, respondent No.1 instead of filing an appeal, filed a petition under Section 18 of the RTI Act before respondent No.2. Thereupon, notice was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner explained the circumstances due to which, he could not supply the information within the time. By impugned order dated 11.10.2012, penalty of Rs.10,000/- has been imposed on the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered by a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANR. V. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANR.’, AIR 2012 SC 864 as well as by an order passed by this Court dated 11.09.2018 in W.P.No.44942/20129 (GM-RES).
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - Commission could not dispute the aforesaid legal position.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and for the reasons assigned by a Bench of this Court in order dated 11.09.2018, the impugned order dated 11.10.2012 is hereby quashed.
With liberty to respondent No.1 to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to him under the law, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-