IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2019 BEFORE BETWEEN:
THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.47762/2018(GM-RES) MOHAMMED KABEER, S/O. IBRAHIM, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT MILLATH NAGAR, NEAR BRIDGE, DARGAH ROAD, ULLAL 575020.
(BY MS. AVANI CHOKSHI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI CLIFTON D ROZARIO, ADVOCATE) AND:
...PETITIONER 1 . KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION GATE NO. 2, III FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRPERSON.
2 . JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES AND FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2015, DVO, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE 575001.
3 . THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, & LOCAL VAT OFFICER - 270, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAXES, MAIDAN ROAD, MANGALORE 575001.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI M. VINODKUMAR AGA FOR R2 AND R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT-3 DATED 05.10.2016 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT -1 DATED 29.01.2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner in the above writ petition has sought for quashing of the orders dated 5.10.2016 issued by the 2nd respondent, Annexure-B and 8.12.2016 passed by the 1st respondent, and to allow the application filed under the Right to Information Act by the petitioner on 12.9.2016 as per Annexure-A.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the 3rd respondent seeking certain certified copies of registration certificate issued under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 in respect of certain business concerned at Ullal, Mangalore, but the 3rd respondent has refused to provide information claiming that it constitutes a third party information. Therefore, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also rejected. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief as sought for.
3. The respondents have not filed any objections.
4. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties to the lis.
5. Ms. Avani Chokshi appearing on behalf of Sri Clifton D. Rozario, learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order passed by the Regional Authority as well as the Appellate Authority rejecting the prayer of the petitioner is erroneous and contrary to the material on record. she would further contend that the information sought does not amount to Trade or Commercial Secrets protected by law. She would further contend that Sub-Clause (10) of Rule 9 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 clearly depicts that certificate of registration granted under Sub-rule (6) shall be exhibited at a conspicuous place within the premises of the principal place of business mentioned in the certificate and a copy of such certificate shall also be exhibited at a conspicuous place within the premises of every other place of business mentioned in the certificate. She, therefore, submitted that it is absolutely evident that the information sought falls under the provisions of Section 11 and the Public Information Officer is duty bound to make a decision in the larger public interest.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner would further contend that in identical circumstances, this Court in the case of Mohammed Kabeer –vs- Karnataka Information Commissioner and Others in W.P.No.43271/2018 and connected matters by the order dated 14th August, 2019 had disposed off the writ petitions directing the 3rd respondent to furnish the information as sought by the petitioner therein within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the said order which has reached finality. Therefore, she sought to allow the writ petition.
7. Per contra, Sri Rajashekhar K., learned Counsel for respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned order and contended that the information sought about the business transaction of the 3rd respondent does not attract the provisions of the Right to Information Act as well as the fact that this Court in identical circumstances stated supra has directed the 3rd respondent to furnish information as sought by the petitioner within a period of 30 days.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is an undisputed fact that the petitioner has sought information from the 3rd respondent pertaining to certified copies of the registration certificate issued under the Karnataka Sales Tax Act, 1957 as per Rule 9 of the Karnataka Sales Tax Rules, 1957 which reads as under:
9. The registering authority, after receipt of the report from the Commercial Tax Inspector and if the application and the report submitted are found to be in order approve the grant of registration to the applicant within 30 days and also a copy of such certificate for every place of business within the State other than the principal place of business mentioned therein.
9. It is also not in dispute that this Court in identical matters in the case of Mohammed Kabeer stated supra has directed the 3rd respondent i.e., the Public Information Officer and Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes to furnish the information sought by the petitioner and the said order passed by this Court has reached finality.
10. In view of the above, in order to maintain judicial propriety and discipline, this Court cannot deviate with the decision made in similar matters stated supra.
11. Accordingly, writ petitions are disposed off.
The impugned endorsement dated 5.10.2016 issued by respondent No.3, Annexure-B; impugned orders dated 8.12.2016 passed by respondent No.2, Annexure-D; and 29.1.2018 issued by the 1st respondent, Annexure-G are hereby quashed and the application filed by the petitioner before the 3rd respondent is allowed. The 3rd respondent is directed to furnish the information sought by the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/- Judge Nsu/-