IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.26004 OF 2014 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN:
1. Shri. M.Nanjundappa, Age 74, Occupation: Class-I, Electrical Contractor, M/s. Shivanayana Electricals, Main Road, Maddur, District-Mandya. (Benefit of senior citizen not claimed) Since deceased, represented by his LRs:
1(a). M.N.Pushpavathi, Aged about 48 years, W/o. Praveen Kulkarni, 1(b). M.N.Bhagyavathi, Aged about 46 years, D/o. Late M.Nanjundappa, 1(c). M.N.Chandravathi, Aged about 44 years, D/o. Late.M.Nanjundappa, 1(d). M.N.Hemavathi, Aged about 42 years, D/o Late M.Nanjundappa, 1(e). M.N.Shivaprasad, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Late M.Nanjundappa, 1(f). M.N.Hariprasad, Aged about 38 years, S/o. Late M.Nanjundappa, All are residents of Maddur-571428, Mandya District. …PETITIONERS (By Sri.G.M.Sharath Kumar, Adv. for Sri.M.Vinaya Keerthy, Adv.) AND:
1. The Managing Director, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 14/3, Rashtrotthan, Pareshat Building, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Chief Development Officer And Chief Engineer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Board, 14/3, Rashtrotthan, Pareshat Building, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Chief Executive Officer And Executive Member, K.I.A.D.B., Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 14/3, Rashtrotthan, Pareshat Building, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
4. The Executive Engineer, (Appellate Authority), Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 14/3, Rashtrotthan Pareshat Building, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
5. The Secretary, Karnataka State Commission For Right to Information Act, No.2, M.S.Building, Bengaluru-560 001.
6. The Technical Assistant And Public Information Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board, 14/3, Rashtrotthan, Pareshat Building, Nrupatunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (By Sri.Basavaraj V.Sabarad, Adv., for R1 to R4 and R6; Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda, Adv., for R5) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned orders vide Annexures D, E, F, G dated 26.08.2013 issued by the Technical Assistant and Public Information Officer, Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board under Nos. i.e.,(1) No. IADB/Tantrika/RTI 7595/2013-14,(2) No.IADB/ Tantrika/RTI7596/2013-14, (3) No.IADB/ Tantrika/ RTI 7597/2013-14, (4) No.IADB/ Tanktrika /RTI 7598/2013-14 and also quash the impugned endorsement dated 27.12.2013 issued by the Under Secretary vide Annexure- K under No. Kamaaa/36448/GRR/2013, etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order dated 27.12.2013 passed by the State Information Commission produced at Annexure-K whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner under S.19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the Act’) has been rejected.
2. Petitioner is a Class-I Electrical Contractor.
The 2nd respondent – Authority floated a tender Notification dated 30.07.2012 for dragging 12 KVA feeder electrical lines for different stages within the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the tender proceedings are not in accordance with the provisions of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 2000. Learned counsel further submits that contrary to the procedure prescribed therein, the tender has been awarded to Firms by name M/s. Aravinda Electricals, M/s.
Swamy Electricals, M/s. Kumar Electrials and M/s. Shah Electricals. Petitioner has filed an application under S.6 of the Right to Information Act seeking particulars and documents relating to M/s. Aravinda Electricals and other successful bidders. Since the respondent – KIADB has not furnished the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the State Information Commission under S.19(3) of the Act.
3. The appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the State Information Commission as per Annexure-K dated 27.12.2013 on the ground that the appeal memo has been signed by the advocate for the appellant and there is no signature of the appellant. The specific case of the petitioner is that on the instructions of the petitioner - applicant, the counsel has filed appeal. Therefore the appeal filed by the advocate on behalf of the petitioner has to be treated as an appeal under S.19(3) of the Act.
Hence, The order passed by the State Information Commission vide Annexure-K dated 27.12.2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Information Commission directing it to treat the appeal memo of the petitioner as the one filed under S.19(3) of the Act and pass orders in accordance with law.
The legal representatives of the deceased petitioner Shri M. Nanjundappa are also permitted to file an application for impleading before the State Information Commission.
Sd/- JUDGE sac*