IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No. 42595/2014(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
L. SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O LATE LINGAPPA KOTANAYAKANAHALLI POST TIPTUR TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT-572 211 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.M. SHARATH KUMAR, ADV. FOR SRI.M. VINAYA KEERTHY, ADV.) AND 1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER # 14/3,I FLOOR, SRI ARAVINDA BHAVAN NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALOORU-560 001 2. THE CHIEF ENGINEER/ MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION K R CIRCLE, BENGALOORU-560 001 3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER & PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION, KARNATAKA NEERAVARI NIGAMA NIYAMITA, TUMKUR-572 211 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G. B. SHARATH GOWDA, FOR R1, SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA. FOR R2, V/O DATED:07.11.2016 PETITION AGAINST R3 IS DISMISSED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 2.6.2014 VIDE ANNEXURE-E PASSED BY THE R-1, DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF FINAL BILL PREPARED AND PAYMENTS MADE UNDER THE FINAL BILL IN THE SECOND WORK ORDER DATED 19.3.1985 VIDE ANNEXURE-C.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This petition is directed against the order No.KIC 7312 PTN 2013 dated 2.6.2014 vide Annexure-E passed by respondent No.1, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Brief facts of the case:
On 4.12.1983, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the respondent No.3 for construction of a new minor irrigation tank at Balamadihalli, Turuvekere Taluk, Tumakuru District. On the basis of the said agreement, the first work order was given to the petitioner on 19.12.1983 and the value of the work entrusted under the said work order was Rs.3,39,000/-. The petitioner completed the said work and subsequently he was issued with another work order on 19.3.1985 and the value of the work entrusted under the said work was Rs.1,92,000/-. The petitioner has completed the work. Respondent No.3 though prepared the final bill and made full payment in respect of the first work order, did not prepare the final bill and pay the entire payment under the second work order. The amount due to the petitioner is Rs.71,476/- in respect of the second work order. Inspite of repeated request, the amount due was not paid to him. Therefore, the petitioner filed an application to the respondent No.2 and 3 under the provisions of Right to Information Act seeking information in respect of payment of second work order. Since, the information furnished by the respondent No.3 was incomplete; he filed an appeal before the Karnataka Information Commission. By order dated 2.6.2014 vide Annexure-E, the Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground that whatever information available with the respondent No.3 has been furnished to the petitioner. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri.G.M.Sharath Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner had entered into an agreement with respondent No.3 for construction of minor irrigation tank. In respect of the first work order, the entire amount has been paid. Whereas in respect of the second work order, the amount due to the petitioner was Rs.71,476/-. Since the respondent No.3 had not paid the amount, the petitioner had filed an application seeking information in respect of the payment of the second work order. Pursuant to that, in the information furnished by the respondent No.3, there is no reference in respect of the payment of second work order. Hence, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Karnataka Information Commission. The Commissioner without considering that the entire information sought by the petitioner has not been furnished has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, he sought for allowing the petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the respondent No.3 appeared before the State Information Commission and has stated that whatever information was available with the respondent No.3 has been furnished to the petitioner. After considering his submission, the State Information Commissioner has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence, he sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
Perused the records.
6. The petitioner has entered into an agreement for construction of minor irrigation tank. In the first work order dated 19.12.1983 entrusted to the petitioner, the value of the work was Rs.3,39,000/-. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner has completed the work and entire amount has been paid. In respect of the second work order dated 19.3.1985, the value of the work was Rs.1,92,000/-. The petitioner has completed the work and received only part payment. The remaining amount of Rs.71,476/- is due to the petitioner. Inspite of repeated request, the amount was not paid to him. Hence, he filed an application to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 seeking information in respect of payment of second work order. Pursuant to the same, the information was furnished to him. According to the petitioner, in the information furnished, some of the documents relating to the second work order has not been furnished and there is no reference to the payment of the second work order.
7. If that is so, the petitioner is at liberty to make a fresh application under the relevant provisions of the Right to Information Act seeking information in respect of the payment of the second work order.
8. With the above observation, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE DM