IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53288 OF 2018(GM-RES) Between:
Mohammed Shoharab S/o Late Haroon Rashid, Aged about 46 years, R/at Near KSRTC Bus Stand, H.R.Enterprises, Virajpet, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District-571 218.
(By Sri. Adinarayan, Advocate) And:
1. The State of Karnataka Department of Revenue, M.S.Building, Ambedkar veedhi, Bengaluru-560 001. Represented by its Secretary.
… Petitioner 2. The Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission, Mahiti Soudha, Devaraj Urs Road, Opp. To Vidhanasoudha West Gate-2, Bengaluru-560 001.
3. The Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikerei-571 201.
4. The Asst. Commissioner, Madikeri, Sub-Division, Madikeri, Kodagu District-571 201.
5. The Tahsildar, Virajpet Taluk, Virajpet, Kodagu District-571 218.
…Respondents (By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1, 3 to 5; Sri. Sharath Gowda, Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to call for the entire records from the file of respondent No.2 in KIC 898 APL 2018 and after perusing the records, set aside the order date: 17.09.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 in KIC 898 APL 2018 which is produced at Annexure-A and etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Adinarayan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Smt.Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 3 to 5.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a direction to respondent No.5 to provide information as sought in his Right to Information application dated 01.07.2017 and to impose penalty on respondent No.5.
4. The facts giving raise to filing of the petition briefly stated are that the petitioner made an application for supply of certified copy of the Grant Order as well as Saguvali Chit, to respondent No.5, namely, the Tahsildar. The Tahsildar refused to supply the information to the petitioner. Thereupon, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, Madikeri Sub-Division, Madikeri. Respondent No.4 by order dated 16.11.2017 directed the Tahsildar to supply the information within seven days. However, respondent No.5 refused to supply information to the petitioner.
5. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Information Commissioner, The Information Commissioner, thereupon, supplied the information, which was available with him and directed the petitioner to obtain remaining information from the office of respondent No.3, namely, the Deputy Commissioner. Thereupon, the Deputy Commissioner once again, relegated the Right to Information application to respondent No.5. In the said factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has submitted an application before respondent No.3 and if information is available with respondent No.3, the same should have been supplied to him instead of relegating to respondent No.5.
7. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents fairly submitted that the application submitted by the petitioner shall be considered by the Deputy Commissioner, Kodagu District, Madikeri and the information sought for by the petitioner shall be supplied to him.
8. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to supply the information as sought for by the petitioner, which is available with respondent No.3 within a period of one month from today.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
dn/-
Sd/- JUDGE