IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No. 4992/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
H.V. Krishna Prasad, S/o late Hanumanthaiah, Aged 51 years, Working as Executive Engineer, BESCOM Corporate Office, K.R. Circle, Bengaluru.
Residing at No.8, 1st Cross, 4th Stage, BEML Layout, Rajarajeshwarinagar, Bengaluru – 560 098. … PETITIONER (By Sri. A. Prasanna Kumar, Adv.) AND:
1. State Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission, M.S. Building, Dr. B.R. Ambedkarveedhi, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. Sri. N. Jagadeesh, S/o (not known to the petitioner), Aged 45 years, Residing at No.146, 4th Cross, 1st Main, 1st Block, 8th Phase, J.P. Nagar, Anjanapura Post, Bengaluru – 560 108. …RESPONDENTS (By Sri. K. Rajashekhar, Advocate for R-1) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 11.09.2015 passed by the R-1/Commissioner (produced vide Annexure-J) to the writ petition and grant an interim order to stay the operation of order dated 11.09.2015 produced vide Annexure-J to the writ petition.
This petition coming on for preliminary hearing in `B’ Group, this day, the court delivered the following:
ORDER The Petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 11.09.2015 impugned at Annexure-J to the petition.
2. The petitioner who is working as Executive Engineer at the BESCOM Corporate Office, K.R. Circle, Bangalore was earlier working in the Yelahanka Division from where he had been transferred. While he was discharging his duties in the said division, he was also at that point designated as Public Information Officer. At that point of time, the second respondent had filed an application seeking certain information. The said application was filed on 22.08.2013. The Petitioner who had received the same had thereafter been transferred by order dated 02.09.2013 and was relieved on 04.09.2013 as per Annexure-C. The said transfer had occurred within the time that was available to furnish the information. The subsequent Public Information Officer though had furnished the information sought by the second respondent there was delay in furnishing the information. It is in that light the second respondent herein had filed the appeal before the first respondent which has resulted in the impugned order dated 11.09.2015, whereby penalty has been imposed on the petitioner for the delay caused in furnishing the information.
3. The learned counsel for first respondent while seeking to sustain the order passed by the first respondent imposing the penalty, would point out that even if the petitioner was transferred, it was incumbent on his part to furnish all details to the succeeding Public Information Officer so as to enable him furnish information. Thereafter the information should have been furnished to the second respondent in accordance with law.
4. Though such contention is put forth by the learned counsel for the first respondent, in the present facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the penalty as imposed against the petitioner herein would not be justified. I am of such opinion for the reason that the document produced along with the petition clearly establishes the fact that the petitioner had been transferred and in any event, the subsequent Public Information Officer has furnished the information to the second respondent though there is some delay in furnishing the same. Therefore, in the said circumstances, the order dated 11.09.2015 is set-aside.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BMB/SPS