IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION NOS.3597-3598 OF 2015 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI N. VENKATACHALAPPA AGED 58 YEARS, S/O K. NARAYANAPPA, PRESENTLY WORKING AS TAHSILDAR, HUNSUR TALUK, HUNSUR MYSURU DISTRICT-571 105. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRITHVI RAJ B.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MADIKERI SUB-DIVISION, MADIKERI-571 236.
3. THE TAHSILDAR SOMWARPETE TALUK, SOMWARPETE-571 236 KODAGU DISTRICT.
4. SMT. RATNA MAJOR BY AGE, TAHSILDAR, SOMWARPETE TALUK, SOMWARPETE-571 236 KODAGU DISTRICT.
5. SRI U.B. CHENGAPPA MAJOR BY AGE, S/O BOPAIAH, CHIKKA KANAGALU VILLAGE, ALURU SIDDAPURA POST, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 108.
6. SRI A.N. VENKATESHA THE TAHSILDAR, SOMAVARPETE TALUK, SOMAVARPETE, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 236. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. KALYANI AGARWAL FOR SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SMT. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R-2 & R-3 SRI. V. NARAYANA SWAMY, ADVOCATE FOR R-5 R-4 AND R-6 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD.28.5.2014, 28.8.2014 & 16.12.2014 PASSED BY R-1 - KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, IN BOTH THE 2ND APPEAL NO.KIC 4653PTN2013 AT ANNEX-A AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER These Writ Petitions are filed by the petitioner for a writ of certiorari to quash the orders dated 28.05.2014, 28.08.2014 and 16.12.2014 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.KIC-4653-PTN-2013 vide Annexure-A and order dated 28.05.2014, 28.08.2014 and 16.12.2014 passed by respondent No.1 in Appeal No.KIC-4655-PTN-2013 vide Annexure-B.
2. It is the case of the petitioner, that 5th respondent -U.B.Chengappa, had filed two applications dated 27.08.2012 and 06.12.2012 under the Right to Information Act before respondent No.3-Tahsildar, Somavarpet Taluk requesting him to furnish certain documents in respect of Sy.No.51 measuring 1 acre 19 guntas and Sy.No.37 measuring 1 acre 16 guntas of Chikkakanagalu Village and other information.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was not the Tahsildar as on the date of the applications filed by respondent No.5 to furnish the information. It is case of the petitioner that he assumed the charge on 08.04.2013 as Tahsildar of Somavarpet Taluk and immediately thereafter he was posted as a Assistant Returning Officer, Madikeri Legislative Assembly till 08.05.2013 wherein he worked as Assistant Returning Officer, Madikeri Legislative Assembly in the office of the Assistant Commissioner, Kodagu and hence, he is no way concerned to the case of the 5th respondent with regard to furnishing of information.
4. Since the petitioner has not furnished the information, 5th respondent filed two appeals on different dates i.e., on 28.02.2012 and 31.01.2013 before the Assistant Commissioner alleging that the information sought by him has not been furnished and therefore, he requested the 2nd respondent to furnish the information as per Annexures-E and F and the Assistant Commissioner by order dated 11.07.2013 directed the Tahsildar to furnish the details sought for in the applications within 15 days from the date of receipt in both the appeals. In pursuance of the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner and in compliance of the said order, the petitioner has furnished the information by issuing an endorsement dated 25.07.2013 and the same is sent through register post as per Annexure-J. Even before filing the appeal before the Assistant Commissioner, 5th respondent filed an appeal on 26.04.2013 before the 1st respondent – Karnataka Information Commission. 1st respondent issued notice dated 18.11.2013 under Rule 10 and 13 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules to both the parties to appear on 27.12.2013. The petitioner appeared and submitted that the information sought by the 5th respondent had already been furnished to the party and he has not committed any mistake and sought for dropping of the proceedings. Inspite of said submission, 1st respondent – Commission without considering the case of the petitioner erroneously passed the impugned orders on 16.12.2014 in both the appeals in Case Nos.KIC-4653-PTN-2013 and KIC-4655- PTN-2013 and imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- in each case as per Annexures-A and B. Aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioner is before this Court for the relief sought for.
5. The respondents have not filed any objections.
6. The petitioner urged in the grounds of the Writ Petitions that 1st respondent without considering the information furnished by the petitioner to the 5th respondent has erroneously imposed penalty of Rs.5,000/- in each of the cases by holding that the petitioner had neglected to furnish information and the same is without any basis. It is further contended that the order passed by the 1st respondent-Commission vide Annexures-A and B is like a cyclostyle order without application of mind and the same are able to be quashed. It is further contended that second appeal preferred by the 5th respondent before the 1st respondent-Commission even after furnishing information is unsustainable in law. Hence, the question of paying cost of Rs.5,000/- in each case does not arise. Therefore, he sought to allow the Writ Petitions by quashing the impugned orders.
7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent No.1 sought to justify the impugned orders and contended that inspite of directions issued by the 1st respondent-
Commission, the petitioner adopted the wrong procedure and not furnished the information within the time stipulated. It is further contended that though the petitioner was present before the 1st respondent on 28.05.2014 and a notice was issued to show cause as to why action should not be taken against him under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act to levy penalty of Rs.250/- per day to a maximum of Rs.25,000/- for the delay in providing the required information to the 5th respondent, petitioner failed to furnish information. Hence, 1st respondent was justified in imposing Rs.5,000/- in each case as penalty. It is further contended that no material was placed before the 1st respondent-Commission about furnishing of information sought for by the 5th respondent. In the absence of any material documents, 1st respondent is justified in imposing penalty. Hence, sought for dismissal of the Writ Petitions.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent No.5, whose application has not been considered by the present petitioner, states that even today information sought for as per Annexures-C and D is not fully furnished by the petitioner. Therefore, he sought to justify the order passed by the 1st respondent.
9. Learned Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 fairly submits that it is the duty of the Public Information Officer to furnish the details sought for if it is permissible under the provisions of the Act and therefore, sought to dismiss the Writ Petitions.
10. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, it is not in dispute, that 5th respondent has sought for information from the office of the Tahsildar, Somavarpet, Kodagu District by filing two applications on 27.08.2012 and 06.12.2012 with regard to certain information. Since the Tahsildar has not furnished information within the time stipulated, 5th respondent approached the Assistant Commissioner on 28.02.2012 and 31.01.2013 by preferring two appeals. Based on applications/representations made, the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner by vide Annexures-G and H dated 11.07.2013 directed the Public Information Officer- Tahsildar, Somavarpet to furnish the said information within 15 days. In response to the said direction, the Tahsildar by an endorsement dated 15.07.2013 has stated that he has furnished the information to the 5th respondent. Being not satisfied with the information, 5th respondent approached the 1st respondent on 26.04.2013 with two representations vide Annexures-L and M. On receipt of the appeals filed under RTI Act under the provisions of Section 19(3) of the Act and under Rule 10 and 13 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 1st respondent issued notice to the 5th respondent and Public Information Officer-Tahsildar, Somavarpet to appear before the Commission on 27.12.2013 as per Annexures-N and N1. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed objections on 27.09.2014 and stated that in response to the notice issued he has filed objections and requested not to impose any penalty as per Annexure-P in both the appeals.
11. The material on record would clearly depicts that even though the 1st respondent by order dated 28.05.2014 directed the petitioner – the then Tahsildar of Somavarpet Taluk to submit his reply within 30 days as to why action should not be taken against him for not furnishing information within the time, the petitioner has not submitted his reply even on 28.08.2014. Hence, the 1st respondent on 28.08.2014 under Section 20(1) of the Act levied penalty of Rs.5,000/- on the petitioner for the delay in furnishing the required information in each of the cases. The records also depicts that even though direction was issued to the petitioner, the then Tahsildar, to remit the penalty to the State Government Head of Account, the petitioner has not remitted the same and even he has not filed any reply to the show cause notice. Hence, once again, 1st respondent directed the present petitioner to remit the penalty levied on him. Even the Commission also directed the D.C., Mandya District to recover the penalty from the salary of petitioner-Sri.Venkatachala, the then Tahsildar and to remit the same to the State Government Head of Account. Hence, it is observed that there is no proper and full information furnished and inspite of issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner has not replied to the same within the time. Therefore, Commission has proceeded to pass the order by imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- in each of the appeals.
12. It is also stated by the learned Counsel for respondent No.5 before this Court that even today, information sought for as per Annexures-C and D are not fully furnished which clearly indicates that petitioner has not furnished information in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act. Therefore, impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- in each of the cases is just and proper. The petitioner has not made out any ground to interfere with the impugned orders passed by the 1st respondent by exercising the powers vested under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, Writ Petitions are dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE Prs*