1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S.BOPANNA WRIT PETITION NO.45453 OF 2011 (GM - RES) BETWEEN:
PROF. N.S. NADIGAR AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS S/O NADIGA RAMANNA R/AT HOUSE NO.122, 4TH CROSS VIDYAGIRI LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI I STAGE BANGALORE – 560 072 ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.KRISHNAMURTHY G HASYAGAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY 2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) & THE DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT NO.17, “JAYANIVASA” SHANKAR MUTT ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004 3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT I & V CELL OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF CO-OPERATIVE AUDIT NO.17, “JAYANIVASA” SHANKAR MUTT ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE – 560 004 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C.KAVITHA, HCGP FOR R2 & 3;
SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURE – J THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2011 IN APPEAL PASSED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO NON-EXERCISE OF THE POWERS TO INITIATE PUNITIVE ACTION AGAINST THE R3 UNDER SECTION 20(1) & (2) OF THE RTI ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R1 TO EXERCISE ITS POWER U/S 20(1) & (2) OF THE RTI ACT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent Nos.2 and 3 who are served and unrepresented and file memo of appearance in the Registry in four weeks.
2. The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 23.11.2011 (Annexure-J). In that light, the petitioner is seeking appropriate direction be issued to initiate punitive action against respondent No.3 as per the provisions of Sections 20(1) and (2) of the R.T.I. Act and consequently, direct the respondents to exercise the power under Sections 20(1)and (2) of the R.T.I Act. The petitioner had filed an application before respondent No.3 seeking information under the provisions of R.T.I. Act, 2005. Since, according to the petitioner, the respondent No.3 had not furnished the information, the appeal under Section 19 of the Act was filed to the Appellate Authority. Respondent No.3 having considered such an appeal had rejected the request of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner claiming to be aggrieved had approached the first respondent – Commission. The first respondent-Commission through the order dated 23.11.2011 has remanded the matter to the second respondent, who is the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter after setting aside the order passed by the third respondent. The petitioner therefore claiming to be aggrieved is before this Court contending that the respondent No.3, who is the Public Information Officer could not have acted as the Appellate Authority against the very order passed by him which had been assailed in the appeal under Section 19 of the Act. In that light, it is contended that, in the circumstances where the information as sought was not provided and the respondent No.3 himself has acted as the appellate authority, the respondent No.1-Commission ought to have appropriately considered the grievance of the petitioner and penalty ought to have been imposed as provided under Sections 20(1) and (2) of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents however, seek to sustain the order passed by respondent No.1.
5. Having taken note of the contentions as put forth, though the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that respondent No.1 ought to have kept in view the provisions as contained under Sections 20(1) and (2) of the R.T.I Act and ought to have imposed the penalty on respondent No.3, a perusal of the order impugned would disclose that respondent No.1 on having taken note of the sequence of events, more particularly, the respondent No.3 exercising the appellate jurisdiction has set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Appellate Authority to pass orders in accordance with law.
6. If that be the position, at this juncture, the need as to whether the power under Sections 20(1) & (2) of the Act was to be invoked by respondent No.1 would not arise. Since the order which was adverse to the interest of the petitioner had already been set-aside by the respondent No.1, the appellate authority namely, the respondent No.2 at this juncture will have to take note of the appeal filed under Section 19 of the Act as filed by the petitioner and orders afresh will have to be passed in the proceedings. It is only based on the conclusion that would be reached by respondent No.2, the issue would arise as to whether any further grievance could be made out by the petitioner and whether in that circumstances, need to consider the matter by respondent No.1 would arise thereafter. Therefore, at this juncture, the prayer as made in the instant petition is not justified. The respondent No.2 -
Appellate Authority shall however take note of the order at Annexure-J and in the remanded proceedings, consider the same in accordance with law and pass fresh orders. All contentions are left open.
Petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE GH