IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.38533 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Smt O. Malathi, W/o. Kambaiah, Aged about 64 years, Secretary & PIO to the Bhagawan Budha, Education Society (R), No.171, 1st Cross, Industrial Town, IV Stage, West of Chord Road, Rajajinagara, Bengaluru-560 010. … Petitioner (By Sri.D.Kashinath, Adv.,) AND:
1. The Karnataka State Information Commission, No.14/3, 1st Floor, Sri.Aravind Bhavan, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru-560 001, Rep. by its Commissioner.
2. Sri. O. Anantharamaiah, Major, Founder Secretary & Executive Member, Bhagawan Budha Education Society, R/o No.103, 2nd Cross, II Main Road, Coconut Garden, Nagarbhavi Main Road, Bengaluru-560 072. ...Respondents (By Sri. A.Dharmesh, Adv., for Sri. G.B.Sharath Gowda, Adv., for R1;
Sri. Harischandra.M, Adv., for Sri. Vaishali Hegde, Adv., for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order at Annex-A dated 13.06.2014 passed by R-1 filed by R-2 as illegal and arbitrary.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Mr. D.Kashinath, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. A.Dharmesh, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Mr. Harischandra M, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 13.06.2014 passed by respondent No.1.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition, briefly stated are, the respondent No.2 filed an application seeking certain information on 28.09.2012 in respect of the Society, which is registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960. The aforesaid information was supplied on 29.05.2013 and 10.07.2013. However, being aggrieved by the delay in supplying the information, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 05.11.2012 and thereafter approached the State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘Commission’ for short) on 19.11.2012. The Commission by impugned order dated 13.06.2014 has imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner for non compliance of the directions dated 03.12.2013, 22.01.2014 and 22.04.2014.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no notice of the proceedings with regard to the proposed penalty ever issued to the petitioner and the Commission has failed to take into the fact that the information as sought for by the petitioner has already supplied. Information as sought for by respondent No.2 was already supplied to him. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to the directions dated 03.12.2013, 22.01.2014 and 22.04.2014. Wherein, learned counsel for respondent No.1 fairly submitted that no notice was given to the petitioner with regard to the proposed penalty.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the impugned order dated 13.06.2014. It is evident that the petitioner was not given any notice with regard to the proposed penalty and the impugned order issued clearly on non-application of mind. The Commission has not assigned any reasons for imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- from the petitioner and the order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner, the same therefore, cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is accordingly, quashed. The matter is remitted to the Commission to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the matter afresh in accordance with law.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*