IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NO.8390/2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
L. Manjunatha S/o Lakkegowda, Aged 38 years, R/at 1381, 6th Cross, Ravendranagara, Mahaveerbahavan Road, Hassan – 573 201. ... Petitioner (By Sri Jagadeesh H.T., Advocate) AND:
1. The Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Revenue Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore – 01.
2. The Assistant Commissioner, Hassan Sub-Division, Hassan – 573 201.
3. Tahasildar, Hassan Taluk, Hassan – 573 201.
4. The Superindent of Police, Hassan District, Hassan – 571 201. ... Respondents (By Ms. Niloufer Akbar, AGA) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the further proceedings before the R-3 in pursuance to the reference dated 23.12.2015 made by the Tahasildar, Hassan Division, Hassan, Annexure-D and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the communication dated 23.12.2015 issued by the third respondent – Tahsildar, Hassan District to the fourth respondent – Superintendent of Police, Hassan to take action against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is a social worker and RTI activist and he has filed a complaint bearing No.UPLOK/MYS/6802/2014 on 24.06.2014 before the Karnataka Lokayukta against the third respondent Tahsildar alleging certain illegal activities against him.
The Assistant Commissioner has passed the order dated 28.01.2015 to take necessary action against the Tahsildar for illegal activities and not discharging the duties legally. On 23.12.2015, the third respondent made the impugned communication to the fourth respondent to keep the petitioner in black list. It is his further case that the petitioner also lodged a complaint on 16.1.2016 to the jurisdictional police to take action against the third respondent – Tahsildar, since he threatened to kill the petitioner.
3. It is further contended that the petitioner had sought for some information from the third respondent, but the same was declined. In order to take revenge against the petitioner, the third respondent has directed the fourth respondent vide impugned communication dated 23.12.2015 to keep the petitioner and others in black list. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. It is specifically contended in the grounds urged in the writ petition that the petitioner had tried to expose certain illegal acts of the third respondent. Therefore, it is contended that the impugned communication by the third respondent directing the fourth respondent to keep the petitioner and others in black list is illegal and without any jurisdiction, because the third respondent has no powers to direct the fourth respondent to pass orders to keep the petitioner and others in black list, except the Appellate Authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Hence, the petitioner has sought to allow the writ petition.
5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents sought to justify the impugned communication.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that the petitioner had applied for certain information before the third respondent Tahsildar under the Right to Information Act, 2005. If it is permissible, the third respondent can furnish the information, but he cannot direct the fourth respondent- Superintendent of Police to take action against the petitioner and others to black list them in the interest of general public. It is for the Superintendent of Police to take action under the Karnataka Police Act, if any person indulges in any illegal activities. Merely because the petitioner has made certain allegations against the third respondent, when the matter is pending before Lokayukta, there is nothing to take revenge against the petitioner and others. It is noticed that the fourth respondent has not implemented the communication dated 23.12.2015. Further, a copy of the impugned communication is not served on the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned communication dated 23.12.2015 issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent directing the petitioner and others to black list is totally without any jurisdiction and cannot be sustained.
7. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned communication dated 23.12.2015 issued by the third respondent to the fourth respondent is hereby quashed. If any application is filed seeking information under the RTI Act, it is for the third respondent or the concerned Officer to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.
8. However, it is made clear that the fourth respondent cannot proceed with any action or proceedings against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned communication of the third respondent.
Sd/- JUDGE VGR