IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51870 OF 2016 (GM-PP) BETWEEN:
M/S SANGAM SERVICE STATION A PARTNERSHIP FIRM JALAHALLI WARD NO.2, TUMKUR ROAD YESHWANTHPUR BANGALORE-560 020 DULY REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER DR.RADHA SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS W/O LATE P.C.SRINIVASA MURTHY … PETITIONER (By Mr. A RAVISHANKAR, ADV.) AND:
1. DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE-560 009.
2. THE ESTATE OFFICER SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAYS BANGALORE DIVISION BANGALORE. … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VISHNU HEGDE, ADV., FOR R1 & R2) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dtd:10.8.2016 passed by the R-2 produced at Annexure-L and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.A.Ravishankar, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vishnu Hegde, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the 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 has assailed the validity of the order dated 10.08.2016 passed by the Estate Officer under the provisions of Karnataka Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the husband of the petitioner had purchased the property in question some time in the year 1963-64. It is also submitted that earlier also, the proceedings for eviction against the husband of the petitioner were initiated by the respondents. However, by an order dated 03.01.2013, the aforesaid proceedings were terminated in favour of the husband of the petitioner as he was the owner of the premises in question. Since the petitioner, who is a widow, is not in possession of the aforesaid documents, therefore, she filed an application seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the record of the proceedings initiated against the husband of the petitioner under the provisions of the Act in No.3/73. The respondents filed a reply. The Estate Officer, however, vide impugned order inter alia held that the petitioner has failed to prove the necessity as well as relevancy of the said documents. It is submitted that the impugned order is erroneous and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents are not in possession of the documents in question. In any case, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, 2002, the petitioner ought to have filed an appeal.
5. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides and have perused the record. From perusal of the communication dated 14.07.2016 issued by the respondents under the Right to Information Act, it is evident that the application submitted by the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that since the documents are more than 20 years, therefore, the respondents are exempted from supplying the same under Section 8(3) of the Right to Information Act. The application filed by the petitioner under the said Act to obtain the aforesaid documents has not been rejected on the ground that the aforesaid documents are not available with the respondents. Even otherwise, the Estate Officer has not rejected the application preferred by the petitioner for production of documents on the ground that the same is not available with the respondents. The finding recorded by the Estate Officer that the documents have no bearing on the controversy involved in the proceeding is perverse and suffers from the vice of non-application of mind. The impugned order is therefore quashed and set aside and the application filed by the petitioner for production of aforesaid documents is allowed.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV