IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.54484 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt.G.Kalpana W/o U. Gopal Aged about 44 years Residing at No.5/110, 1st Main, II Cross, Hosakerehalli, Banashankari III Stage, Bengaluru-560 085. … PETITIONER (By Sri.B.L.Mayanna, Adv. for M/s. Lawyers Inc.,) AND:
1. Karnataka Information Commission II Gate, III Floor, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001. By Information Commissioner.
2. Kum. L.Manjula Major, Residing at No.3377, 4th Cross, Gayathri Nagara, Near Vivekananda Law College, Bengaluru – 560 021.
(By Sri.K.Rajashekar, Adv. for R1, R2- served & unrepresented) ...RESPONDENTS This Writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the orders dated 30.05.2016 & 06.09.2016 passed by R-1 Commission produced at Annexure-M & P.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. B.L.Mayanna, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. K.Rajashekar, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is assailing the validity of the orders dated 30.05.2016 and 06.09.2016 passed by the Respondent No.1 – Commission.
3. The facts giving raise to the filing of the writ petition are briefly stated that, Respondent No.2 filed a complaint on 22.11.2013 to the Chairman of the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission to take action on illegal power supply to certain premises. Thereafter on 27.01.2014, she filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), seeking information in pursuance of the complaint filed by her to the petitioner and a copy of the aforesaid application was handed over to the petitioner. The petitioner there upon, transmitted the aforesaid application to the competent authority on 18.02.2014. The 2nd Respondent filed an appeal on 26.02.2014 under Section 19(1) of the Act. The competent authority by an order dated 24.03.2014 disposed of the appeal and directed the copy of the information available with the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission be supplied to the 2nd Respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner was served with a notice by the 1st Respondent, by which, he was asked to inform as to why the costs should not be imposed on him for not transferring the application within the stipulated time. The petitioner filed the detailed response to the official Notice on 30.05.2016. The Respondent No.1 – Commission by order dated 30.05.2016 imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner.
4. With the aforesaid background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
5. When the matter is taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is not the competent authority under the Act to supply information to the 2nd Respondent and there is no provision in the Act to impose penalty on mere delay in transmitting the application.
6. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.1- Commission was unable to point out from the provisions of the Act that the Act prescribes imposition of any penalty on the delay in transmitting the application seeking information.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for both the parties.
8. Admittedly, the Act does not prescribe any penalty on the delay in transmitting the application seeking information. Therefore, no penalty could have been imposed on the petitioner. The impugned order is therefore per se without jurisdiction and therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
9. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.05.2016 and 06.09.2016 passed by the Respondent No.1- Commission vide Annexures-M & P are hereby quashed.
Sd/- JUDGE Srl.