IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. T. NARENDRA PRASAD W.P.No. 21991 OF 2013(GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Sri. Ravindra Laxman Puger S/o Late. Laxman Puger Aged about 48 years Working as District Registrar & Public Information Officer Chickmagalur-577101. … Petitioner (By Sri.B.Roopesha, Advocate) AND:
1. The State Information Commissioner Simsa Bhavan, No.720 8th Block, 46th Cross Sangam Circle, Jayanagar Bangalore-560041.
2. A.R.Viswanatha Social Environmental Activist Vivekananda Public Interest Foundation Temple Street, Arehally town Bellur Taluk, Hassan District-573101. ... Respondents (By Ms. Kalyani Agarwal, Advocate for Sri.G.B Sharath Gowda, Advocate for R1:
Smt. Akkamahadevi Hiremath, Advocate for R2) This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to call for the records relating to Annexure-J from the file of the R1 & quash the order issued by the R1, dated 05.04.2013 vide Annexure-J.
This writ petition, coming on for preliminary hearing ‘B’ Group this day, the Court, made the following:
ORDER This writ petition is directed against the order dated 05.04.2013 (Annexure-J) passed by the first respondent imposing penalty of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’ for short).
Further petitioner was directed to pay the amount in lumpsum or to deduct from his salary of Rs.3,000/- for the months of May and June 2013.
2. The case of the petitioner is that second respondent is a Social Environmental Activist. He has filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur on 09.12.2011 seeking the documents pertaining to the office of the District Registrar and office of the Sub-Registrar which comes under the jurisdiction of the Deputy Commissioner and also sought for the list of catalog and index of the records and files maintained under the RTI Act. The Deputy Commissioner’s office has received that application on 09.12.2011. Since it pertains to the District Registrar, the application has been transferred to the petitioner who was working as District Registrar and Public Information Officer, Chickmagalur. Immediately petitioner has furnished the documents to respondent No.2. Inspite of that respondent No.2 has filed an appeal before the State Information Commission. State Information Commission issued notice to the petitioner. Pursuant to the notice issued by the State Information Commission the petitioner has filed reply and stated that he has furnished all the documents. The State Information Commission by order dated 05.04.2013 has imposed the penalty of Rs.6,000/- to the petitioner by order at Annexure- J on the ground that there is a delay in furnishing the information. Being aggrieved by the same petitioner has filed this writ petition.
3. Sri B.Roopesha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the notice issued by the State Information Commission the petitioner has given a reply. There is a typographical error in the reply given by the petitioner. Instead of 03.01.2012 it is mentioned that the information has been furnished on 08.12.2011. The application itself is made on 09.12.2012. Hence the State Information Commission has rejected the reply submitted by the petitioner and imposed the penalty. In fact the petitioner has furnished the information on 03.01.2012. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.
4. Ms.Kalyani Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for Sri G.S.Sharath Gowda for the first respondent submits that pursuant to the notice given by the State Information Commission a reply was submitted by the petitioner. He has clearly mentioned that he has furnished the documents on 08.12.2011 and in fact the application itself was filed on 09.12.2011. In fact the petitioner has not furnished the necessary documents within 30 days. Hence, the State Information Commission has rightly imposed the penalty.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
6. The second respondent has filed the application on 09.12.2011 before the Deputy Commissioner, Chickmagalur seeking information related to District Registrar, Chickmagalur and Sub-Registrar, Chickmagalur. Since the matter is related to the District Registrar, Chickmagalur, the Deputy Commissioner has transferred that application to the petitioner’s office. As per the documents which are now produced along with the memo i.e., covering letter and acknowledgment, the petitioner has furnished the document on 03.01.2012. But in the reply he has wrongly mentioned the date as 08.12.2011. In view of the records produced by the petitioner along with memo, this Court is of the opinion that Annexure-J has to be set aside and the matter has to be sent back to the State Information Commission for reconsideration.
7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission dated 05.04.2013 vide Annexure-J is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the State Information Commission for reconsideration afresh, reserving liberty to the petitioner to produce all the relevant documents before the State Information Commission and the Commission to consider the same and pass orders in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE Cm/-