IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.5642 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
MR. J M RAJASHEKHARA S/O JAYADEVAIAH MATHAD AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS #36, “AMMA”
BESIDES MOUNT VIEW SCHOOL HUNASIKATTI ROAD RANNEBENNUR-581115 HAVERI DISTRICT.
... PETITIONER (BY SMT.ANNU BHARDWAJ ON BEHALF OF SRI.HARIKRISHNA S HOLLA, ADVOCATES) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPT. OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT 3RD BLOCK, PODIUM BLOCK V V TOWER BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DR LINGARAJ K FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR C/O KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT 3RD BLOCK, PODIUM BLOCK V V TOWER BANGALORE-560001.
3. DR K E KUMARASWAMY FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR C/O KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT 3RD BLOCK, PODIUM BLOCK V V TOWER BANGALORE-560001.
4. MR S L PATIL FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR C/O KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT 3RD BLOCK, PODIUM BLOCK V V TOWER BANGALORE-560001 5. MR H P SUDHAM DAS FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN MAJOR C/O KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT 3RD BLOCK, PODIUM BLOCK V V TOWER BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.UDAY HOLLA, ADVOCATE GENERAL ALONG WITH SMT.PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, AGA FOR R1 SRI.G.KRISHNAMURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH SRI.CHANDRAKANTH PATIL K, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.HARSHA, ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4 SRI.SATISH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH NOTIFICATION DTD:11.1.2018 [ANNEXURE-D] AND DECLARE THAT THE R-2 TO 5 ARE NOT EMINENCE PERSONS AND THEREFORE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR SELECTION AS INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS IN PURSUANCE OF SECTION 15[5] OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Smt.Annu Bhardwaj, learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Harikrishna S.Holla, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Udaya Holla, Advocate General along with Smt.Prathima Honnapur, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.
Sri.G.Krishnamurthy, Senior counsel along with Sri.Chandrakanth Patil K., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
No.5.
Sri.Harsha, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4. Sri.Satish Doddamani M, Advocate for respondent The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of the parties, it is heard finally.
In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner interalia seeks a writ of certiorari quashing notification dated 11.01.2018 as well as declaration that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are not persons of eminence and therefore, they are not eligible for selection as Information Commissioners in view of Section 15(5) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for appointment to the post of Information Commissioner. The petitioner also seeks a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to frame rules regarding selection of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners as provided under Section 28 of the Act.
2. Facts giving rise to filing of the Writ Petition briefly stated are that the petitioner joined the government service as Junior Health Assistant in Primary Health Centre, Kudupalli, Hirekere Taluk, Haveri District. The petitioner thereafter was promoted as Block Health Education Officer in the year 2012. The respondent No.1 initiated the process for filling up the post of Information Commissioners by issuance of notification dated 29.11.2017 from the post of Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore. It is averred in the Writ Petition that in view of Section 15(5) of the Act, the State Chief Information Commissioner and State Information Commissioners should be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. It is averred in the Writ Petition that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 who have been selected for appointment as Information Commissioners, according to the petitioner are not the persons of eminence as required under Section 15(5) of the Act.
3. It is further pleaded that the notification for appointment of respondent Nos.2 to 5 were issued on 11.01.2018. It is also stated in the Writ Petition that two persons are from political background whereas one of the person who has been selected for the post of State Information Commissioner is a Doctor by profession. It is averred that the petitioner had filed an application on 16.01.2018 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking information regarding the qualifications and experience of the respondent Nos.2 to 5. However, till today, information as sought for by the petitioner has not been supplied. It is also stated that the petitioner is more meritorious as compared to respondent Nos.2 to 5, and has rich experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. It is also averred that without proper application of mind, even though the respondent Nos.2 to 5 do not have any qualification as prescribed under Section 15(5) of the Act, they have been selected and appointed as Information Commissioners. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs as stated supra.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 while making appointments to the post of State Information Commissioners have flouted the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS in WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.436 OF 2018 dated 15.02.2019. It is further submitted that the action of respondent No.1 in selecting respondent Nos.2 to 5 to the post in question is arbitrary, illegal and is contrary to law and is in contravention of Section 15(5) of the Act. It is also argued that one of the respondents who have been selected to the post of State Information Commissioner is from political background whereas another respondent is a doctor by profession and aforesaid respondents do not meet the parameters fixed for appointment to the post of State Information Commissioners. It is also urged that respondent No.1 has failed to frame rules regarding selection of Chief Information Commissioners and Information Commissioners.
5. On the other hand, learned Advocate General submitted that in pursuance of the notification, applications were invited; various candidates including respondent Nos.2 to 5 had submitted their applications. In all 296 applications were received. It is further submitted that the applications were placed before the Committee constituted under Section 15(3) of the Act comprising of the Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. The committee in its meeting held on 02.01.2018 scrutinized the applications and recommended the names of respondent Nos.2 to 5 for being appointed as the State Information Commissioners. The committee on due consideration has opined that respondent Nos.2 to 5 are persons of eminence and fulfill the criteria laid down in Section 15(5) of the Act. It is further submitted that this Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision which has been taken by the Committee in the absence of any arbitrariness. It is further submitted that the selection were made by the Committee prior to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ’s stated supra i.e., on 15.02.2019. In support of his submission, learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.UMAPATHI VS. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS passed in W.P.NO.40784/2012 dated 10TH MARCH 2014. Learned counsels for respondent Nos.2 to 5 have adopted the submission made by the learned Advocate General.
6. I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Therefore, proceeding further, it is relevant to take note of Section 15(5) of the Act, which reads as under:-
“15 (5) The State Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioners shall be persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance.”
7. The notification dated 29.11.2017 was issued inviting applications for the post of four Information Commissioners in the State of Karnataka. In pursuance of the aforesaid notification, 296 applications were received. The aforesaid applications were placed before the Committee constituted under Section 15(3) of the Act comprising of the Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, Leader of Opposition in the Legislative Assembly and Minister of Law and Parliamentary Affairs. The Committee held its meeting on 02.01.2018 and scrutinized the applications. On careful scrutiny of the applications, the Committee recommended the names of respondent Nos.2 to 5 for being appointed as State Information Commissioners. Thereupon, the notification was issued appointing respondent Nos.2 to 5 as Information Commissioners. At this stage, it is necessary to refer to the Bio-data of respondent Nos.2 to 5, which reads as under:-
(i) Sri.S.L.Patil is a Post Graduate in Economics and was selected as a Class-I Gazette Officer (Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes) through K.P.S.C., in 1985. He has worked for 32 years as a ‘Quasi-Judicial Authority’. As Joint Commissioner, he was hearing, administering and governing 3 divisions. As Additional Commissioner, he was administering and governing the State Level Officers. He has also worked for 4 years as
2250 Sales Tax Appeals. At the time of his appointment, he was Additional Commissioner and the senior most officer in the State in the Department of Commercial Taxes. Having vast knowledge of Tax Laws, administration and Governance, he squarely fits into the requirements so specified under the provisions of Section 15(5) of the Act.
(ii) Sri.H.P.Sudham Dasis is an Engineering Graduate. He was selected as the Preventive Officer in Customs in the year 1993 and was promoted as the Superintendent of Customs and Central Excise in the year 2002. Further, through Union Public Service Commission, he was selected as the Deputy Director of Enforcement Directorate in the year 2012 and served in Bangalore Zone having the jurisdiction of entire State of Karnataka and was also holding additional charge of Kochin Zone of Kerala State.
(iii) Dr.K.E.Kumaraswmay has completed M.B.B.S., and D.A. (Anesthesiology) and has rich experience of Medical Practice for 20 years. He has done lot of social service, conducting voluntary services for the cause of disabled persons through health awareness camps and health check up camps organized by society for people’s integrated development and provided free medical treatment for the most vulnerable society of mentally retarded persons and senior citizens.
(iv) Dr.Lingaraj K., is a Bachelor of Dental Surgery and worked as lecture for the last 10 years. He has served the rural and urban community through various outreaching programmes like organizing camps, treatment camps, check-up camps, mobile units, primary health centres, services to inmates of central jail, services to old age homes, school health programmes etc. He has been working as N.S.S. Programme Officer for Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Science, Bengaluru and also to J.S.S.University, Mysore.
8. Thus, on the basis of material placed before it, Committee opined that the respondent Nos.2 to 5 are persons of eminence in public life with wide knowledge and experience in law, science and technology, social service, management, journalism, mass media or administration and governance. In any case, opinion with regard to their eminence as prescribed under Section 15(5) of the Act has to be formed by the Committee which is a matter of subjective satisfaction. This Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the Committee which was duly constituted under the provisions of the Act. The petitioner has failed to point out any patent illegality or arbitrariness in the recommendations made in favour of respondent Nos.2 to 5. It is well settled in law that this Court should be slow to interfere with the recommendations made by a Committee comprising of experts and to interfere with its recommendations unless allegations of malafies are made against the experts. In the instant case, no such allegations have been made against members of Committee. Therefore, no case of interference is made out [SEE SAJEESH BABU K VS. N.K.SANTOSH [(2012) 12 SCC 106] AND U.V.MAHADKAR VS. SUBHASH ANAND CHAVAN [(2016) 1 SCC 536]].
9. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner is a Block Health Officer, which is a ‘C’ Grade cadre. So far as submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.1 has flouted the guidelines laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to appointments of the State Information Commissioners in the case of ANJALI BHARDWAJ’s stated supra is concerned, suffice it to say, the aforesaid decision was rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 15.02.2019 whereas the recommendations for appointment to the posts in question were already made on 02.01.2018 that is prior to the decision rendered in the case of Anjali Bhardwaj’ case. Therefore, aforesaid submission is of no assistance to the petitioner in the facts of this case. In view of the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this Writ Petition. Writ Petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*