IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.57627 OF 2013(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
B.NAGARAJ S/O K.C.BORALINGAIAH AGE: 49 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA (By Mr.MAHESH R. UPPIN, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE.
2. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION M.S.BUILDNG, BANGALORE – 560 001. BY ITS SECRETARY 3. MYSORE CITY CORPORATION MYSORE BY ITS COMMISSIONER 4. NARAHARI S S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE MAJOR NO.41, 8TH CROSS ROAD SECOND STAGE BRINDAVAN EXTENSION … PETITIONER MYSORE – 570 020.
5. PROJECT DIRECTOR DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT MANDYA.
… RESPONDENTS (By SMT.NILOUFER AKBAR AGA FOR R1 & R5 MS.KALYANI AGARWAL, ADV. FOR SRI.SHARATH GOWDA G.B. ADV. FOR R2 SRI.H.C.SHIVARAMU ADV. FOR R3 R4 SERVED.) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.102.2013 PASSED BY THE R2 VIDE ANNEXURE- K.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Mahesh R.Uppin, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.Niloufer Akbar, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 & 5.
Ms.Kalyani Agarwal for Mr.Sharath Gowda G.B., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Mr.H.C.Shivaramu, learned counsel for respondent No.3 2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With consent of the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 23.10.2013 passed by respondent No.2, by which a fine of Rs.10,000/- has been dismissed by the petitioner for not supplying the information. Admittedly, in the instant case, an application seeking information was filed on 27.02.2011 before the petitioner. The petitioner supplied the aforesaid information on 30.08.2012. However, the respondent No.4 filed a complaint before respondent No.2 that information sought for by respondent No.4 has not been supplied by the petitioner. Thereupon, the impugned order has been passed. The respondent No.4 had filed an appeal on 27.04.2012 on the ground that the information as sought for was not supplied to him and simultaneously he filed a complaint before respondent No.2 stating that the information as sought for by him was not supplied by the petitioner. However, the information was furnished on 30.08.2012. The appeal was dismissed. However, the fact that the information has been supplied to respondent No.4 was not brought to the notice of respondent No.2 and respondent No.4 pursued the complaint, which was prior filed by respondent No.2, thereupon the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submitted that despite direction issued by the State Information Commission was furnished by the petitioner belatedly, the penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the petitioner and the petitioner did not appear in the proceedings before the respondent No.2. Therefore, the penalty has been rightly imposed on the petitioner. It is also urged that no explanation was furnished by the petitioner and the penalty should not be imposed.
4. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel on both the sides. Admittedly, the petitioner has supplied the information which is apparent from the communication dated 30.08.2012. However, it appears that the fact that the petitioner had supplied information to respondent No.4 was not brought to the notice of respondent No.2. Therefore, the penalty of Rs.10,000/- was imposed on the ground that the information sought for by respondent No.4 was furnished on 30.08.2012. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby quashed and the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE SS