IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.26572 OF 2018 (GM-RES) Between:
Sri. K. B. Prakash S/o Sri. Badrappa Aged about 59 years Public Information Officer And Executive Engineer Public Work Department, Ports and Inland Transport Department Ramanagara Sub Division Ramanagaram (By Sri. S. Rama Murthy, Advocate) … Petitioner And:
1. The Commissioner Karnataka State Information Commission 2nd Floor, Mahiti Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001 2. The Superintendent of Police Ramanagara District Ramanagaram – 562 159 … Respondents (By Sri. G. B. Sharath Gowda, Advocate for R1; Sri. Sridhar N. Hegde, HCGP for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order at Annexure-E Para O passed by 1st respondent in appeal No.KAMAHA 239/APL 2015 dated 28.02.2018 at Annexure-E insofar as it affects him and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. S. Rama Murthy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. G. B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri. Sridhar N. Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for quashment of the order dated 28.02.2018 by which the State Information Commission has directed to lodge the First Information Report against the petitioner.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short), the State Information Commission has no authority in law to direct to lodge the First Information Report against the petitioner.
4. On the other hand, Sri. G. B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has fairly accepted the aforesaid submission and has submitted that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, the State Information Commission has no authority in law to direct to lodge the First Information Report against the petitioner. In view of non compliance of the directions issued by the authority, no penalty can be imposed and no initiation of the enquiry can be recommended.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission and taking into account the fact that under Sections 19 and 20 of the Act, the State Information Commission has no authority in law to direct to lodge the First Information Report, the impugned order dated 28.02.2018 insofar as it pertains to direction for lodging of the First Information Report against the petitioner is hereby quashed and set aside.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-