IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD WRIT PETITION No.33513/2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI H VEERABHADREGOWDA S/O SRI HOTTE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MICO LAYOUT SUB-DIVISION ABOVE TILAKNAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KARTHIKEYAN B.S. IYER, ADV. FOR SRI. K HIRIYANNA, ADV.) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR M S BUILDING BANGALORE-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER 2. SRI A R S KUMAR # 62, 6TH CROSS, S R NAGARA BANGALORE-560027 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G. B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV. FOR R1, SMT. AKKAMAHADEVI HIREMATH, ADV. FOR R2.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE PORTION OF THE ORDER WITH RESPECT TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UPON THE PETITIONER DATED 11.10.12 VIDE ANNXURE-J AND ORDER DATED 9.4.13 VIDE ANNEXURE-L PASSED BY R1.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure-J) and order dated 9.4.2013 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 in KIC 9781 PTN 2011.
2. Brief facts of the case:
The respondent No.2 had sought certain information by filing an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 on 9.8.2011 in the office of the Director & Inspector General of Police. On 20.8.2011, the said application was transferred to the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, South Division, Bangalore. Thereafter, vide letter dated 24.8.2011 the same was intimated to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Banashankari Sub-Division, Bangalore with a direction to furnish the information. At that time, the petitioner was the Assistant Commissioner of Police and Public Information Officer at Banashankari Sub-Division. Immediately, thereafter vide letter dated 2.9.2011 (Annexure-D), the petitioner informed the respondent No.2 that the information sought by him contains 15 pages and asked to pay Rs.2 for each page totaling to Rs.30/- for collecting the information. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 filed a complaint before the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 issued notice to the petitioner on 14.6.2012. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner had given his reply to the notice on 25.8.2012 (Annexure-H). Respondent No.1 without considering the same, passed the order dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure-J) in KIC 9781 PTN 2011 imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- and stating that the petitioner has not submitted any reply to the notice dated 14.6.2012. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed an application to the respondent No.1 for reconsidering the order dated 11.10.2012 passed by the Commissioner. Respondent No.1 vide order dated 9.4.2013 (Annexure-L) has rejected the application filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.
3. Sri.Karthikeyan. B.S. Iyer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that immediately after the petitioner received the notice dated 14.6.2012 from the respondent No.1, he has submitted his reply on 25.8.2012 vide Annexure-H. The Commissioner without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner has passed the order dated 11.10.2012 imposing penalty of Rs.10,000. Further, the application filed by the petitioner for reconsideration of the order dated 11.10.2012 was also dismissed by the Commissioner on 9.4.2013. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent submits that Rule 4(2)(aa) of the RTI Rules, prescribes only Rs.1/- per page. But the petitioner had asked the respondent No.2 to pay Rs.2/- per page for the information sought for by the respondent No.2 as per Rule 4(2)(a) of the Rules. Therefore, the Commissioner has rightly imposed penalty to the petitioner. Hence, sought for dismissal of the petition.
5. It is not in dispute that respondent No.2 had filed an application seeking for certain information under the provisions of RTI Act. Since, the petitioner has asked the respondent No.2 to pay Rs.2/- per page of the information sought for, the respondent No.2 had approached the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had issued notice to the petitioner. Pursuant to the notice, the petitioner had submitted his reply on 25.8.2012. At the time of passing the order dated 11.10.2012, the respondent No.1 has not taken note of the reply submitted by the petitioner. Subsequently, the petitioner has filed the application for reconsideration of order dated 11.10.2012. By order dated 9.4.2013, the respondent No.1 has rejected the application stating that the application is not maintainable.
6. Since, the order dated 11.10.2012 is passed without considering the reply filed by the petitioner, the same is unsustainable. The matter requires reconsideration. Hence, the following order:
a) Writ petition is disposed of.
b) The order dated 11.10.2012 (Annexure-J) and order dated 9.4.2013 (Annexure-L) passed by respondent No.1 in KIC 9781 PTN 2011, are set aside.
c) The matter is remitted to the respondent No.1 to consider the same after giving opportunity to the petitioner and consider the reply submitted by the petitioner on 25.8.2012 and pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE DM