IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION Nos.16662-16663/2015(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE, BENGALURU-560 001.
BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, UDYOGA SOUDHA, PARK HOUSE, BENGLAURU-560 001.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. M. A. MAHESH, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGE: MAJOR, RESIDING AT NO.16, FLAT NO.1, GURUVARANAM APARTMENTS, 3RD STAGE, 2ND MAIN ROAD, ITI LAYOUT, BHOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 094.
2. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION NO.336, 2ND GATE, 3RD FLOOR, M. S. BUILDING, BENGLAURU-560 001, BY ITS COMMISSIONER.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRABHUGOUD TUMBIGI, ADVOCATE FOR M/S M.T. NANAIAH ASSOCIATES, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.2.2015 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE SAID APPEAL ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENT-2 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT-1.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners-Karnataka Public Service Commissioner is before this Court for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 23.2.2015 in KIC 10368 APL 2014 passed by the 2nd respondent – Karnataka Information Commission, Annexure-A and consequently to dismiss the said appeal filed by the 1st respondent before the 2nd respondent.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that the 1st respondent by way of his representation dated 13.3.2014 sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in respect of 2008 Gazetted Probationers Recruitment. In response to the said representation dated 13.3.2004, the Public Information Officer of petitioner No.1/KPSC issued an endorsement dated 21.4.2004 to the 1st respondent stating that the answer scripts in respect of 2008 Gazetted Probationers Recruitments main examination have been destroyed and disposed and hence, the information sought by him could not be furnished. Aggrieved by the said endorsement, the 1st respondent preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority of the Commission which was also rejected against which an appeal was preferred before the 2nd respondent-Karnataka Information Commission, who in turn passed the impugned order dated 23.2.2015 directing the 2nd petitioner-Public Information Officer to collect the information sought for and to furnish the same to the 1st respondent on or before 31.3.2015 with an intimation to it. Against the said order passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioners have preferred these writ petitions.
3. This Court by the order dated 22.4.2015 granted an interim stay of impugned order dated 23.2.2015 passed by the 2nd respondent, Annexure-A. When the matters had come up before this Court on 3.8.2016, learned Counsel for the petitioners was directed to secure the instructions as to whether any case relating to the selection of the year 2008 for which exams were held in the year 2009, was pending before any other forum. Subsequently, on 7.9.2016 learned Counsel for the petitioners filed a memo stating that there was no case pending in respect of Gazetted Probationers 2008 main examination and furnished the relevant date in respect of Gazetted Probationers 2008 main examination.
4. Today when the matters are posted hearing, Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Counsel for the petitioners has furnished the information provided by the Section Officer, Confidential Brach-2, Karnataka Public Service Commission which states that the information provided is on the basis of computer records, as physical verification with the original answer scripts is not possible due to unavailability. The same is taken on record. A copy of the same is also furnished to the learned Counsel for the respondent.
5. Sri Prabhugoud Tumbigi for M/s. M.T. Nanaiah Associates, learned Counsel for respondent No.1 submits that in view of the information furnished by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, the writ petitions may be disposed of with liberty to the 1st respondent to urge all the contentions before the 2nd respondent in the pending case for any other further information. The said submission is placed on record.
6. Without adverting to the merits and demerits of case, writ petitions are disposed off reserving liberty to the 1st respondent to urge the same before the 2nd respondent in the pending case for any other further information.
7. However, all the contentions raised by both parties are left open to be urged before the 2nd respondent.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-