IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.52335/2018(GM-Res) C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO.52336/2018(GM-Res) AND WRIT PETITION NO.52337/2018(GM-Res) BETWEEN :
P.Vasanthakumar, Public Information Officer & Chief Administrative officer, Medical Education, Ananda Rao Circle, Bangalore – 560 009 Aged about 44 years. ...PETITIONER (Common in all) (By Dr.Ravindra V.Reddy, Adv.) AND :
1. Karnataka Information Commission, Represented by its Secretary, Gate-2, 3rd Floor, M.S.Building, Dr.Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 001.
2. Dr.R.Vinay Kumar, Major, No.140/A, 2nd Block, 2nd Stage, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore – 560 072. …RESPONDENTS (Common in all) (By Sri.Y.D.Harsha, AGA Dr.R.Vinay Kumar [pary-in-person]) . . . .
These writ petitions are filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct respondent No.1 to drop the proceedings pending before it in case against the petitioner as not maintainable and quash the order dated 05.10.2018 (Annexure – D) passed by the respondent in case Nos. KIC 13714 APL 2017, KIC 13715 APL 2017 and KIC 13716 APL 2017, imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/-.
These writ petitions coming on for preliminary hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate and the party-in-person.
2. The petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard for final disposal.
3. In these writ petitions filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the validity of the order dated 05.10.2018 insofar as issuing of the show cause notice and imposing of the fine of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
4. The facts giving raise to filing of the writ petitions are:
It is stated that on 24.08.2016 the petitioner took charge as Chief Administrative Officer of Medical Education and also the Public Information Officer. The respondent No.2 filed an application on 04.09.2017 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The petitioner by a communication dated 20.09.2017 informed respondent No.2 that the information sought for by him does not fall within the purview of Section 2(f) of the Act. Accordingly, the application filed by respondent No.2 was rejected.
5. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority namely, The Director, Medical Education, Bangalore. The respondent No.2 thereafter filed second appeal under the Act before the Karnataka Information Commission. The Karnataka Information Commission, by the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 has directed the petitioner to supply the information to respondent No.2 as well as imposed the fine of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner under Section 20(1) of the Act. In the aforesaid factual background, these petitions are filed.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 did not record any satisfaction with regard to the condition precedent for exercise of powers under Section 20(1) of the Act and therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. It is further submitted that it may be a case of erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the Act on the part of respondent No.1.
However for that reason, the petitioner cannot be vested with penal consequences.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the petitioner was under an obligation to supply the information to respondent No.2 and since he had not supplied the information, therefore after issuing a show cause notice to the petitioner, a fine of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on him.
8. Respondent No.2 who has appeared in person has submitted that the order passed by the respondent No.1 is just and legal and does not call for any interference.
9. I have considered these submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. Section 20(1) of the Act reads as under:
20. Penalties.—(/) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (/) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand Rupees:
Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:
Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.
From the very perusal of Section 20(1) of the Act it is evident that the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission is to form an opinion that the authority has failed to furnish the information without any reasonable cause, or has malafidely denied the request for information, or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete, misleading or destroyed information which was subject matter of the request. The aforesaid condition is a condition precedent for levy of penalty which shall not exceed Rs.20,000/-.
10. In the instant case, the learned counsel for the parties as well as respondent No.2 have fairly stated before me that in the impugned order dated 05.10.2018 which is in vernacular language, no satisfaction with regard to fulfillment of the conditions mentioned in Section 20(1) of the Act has been recorded by the Karnataka Information Commission. The impugned order therefore insofar as it imposes penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law. To the aforesaid extent the impugned order is quashed.
Needless to state that respondent No.1 shall be at liberty to take action in the matter in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SPS