IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 07th DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 30841/2018 (GM-RES) Between:
Sri. S. D. Shadaksharappa S/o. late. Dyamappa Aged about 54 years R/o. Kanivebilachi Village & Post Channagiri Taluk – 577 231 Davangere District ... Petitioner (By Sri. N. S. Bhat, Advocate) And 1. The CPIO M/s. Dhruva Indane Gas Agencies Channagiri Town Davangere District – 577 213.
2. The Appellate Authority Indian Oil Corporation Limited Karnataka State Office Marketing Division No.29, Indian Oil Bhavan P. Kalingarao Road (Mission Road) Bengaluru – 560027.
3. Central Information Commission August kranti Bhavan Bhikaji Kama Place New Delhi – 110066.
Rep. by the Registrar ... Respondents This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash the impugned letter dtd. 01.03.2017 issued by the Appellate Authority I.O.C. Ltd., Karnataka Office, Bengaluru – 560027, the R-2 as per Annx-H and also quash the impugned order dtd.31.05.2018 in appeal No.CIC/IOCLD/A/2017/145212 passed by Central Information Commission, New Delhi – the R-3 vide Annx-L and consequently the respondents may be directed to furnish C.C. of the documents sought for by the petitioner and etc.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing this day, the court made the following:-
O R D E R The petitioners’ application under Sections 6 and 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘RTI Act, 2005’) with the respondent No.1 for certain information was not considered. Therefore, the petitioner filed first appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act, 2005. The respondent No.2, during the pendency of the first appeal, furnished some part of the information. Being aggrieved, and allegedly on the advice of the Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore the petitioner filed second appeal before the respondent No.3 on 27.06.2017. The respondent No.3 by the impugned order dated 31.05.2018, rejected the petitioner’s appeal on the solitary ground that the petitioners initial application for information was with respondent No.1, a Private Agency.
2. The provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 cannot be invoked as regards the information sought from a Private Agency, and the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005 would enable the petitioner to have recourses available only if the application is made with a ‘Public Authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) thereof.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that the application for information was filed with the respondent No.1 a Private Agency. Therefore, there cannot be any infirmity in the impugned order. However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Court is of the considered opinion that, subject to all exceptions in law, the writ petition could be disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make application for the information required with the public authority as defined under the RTI Act, 2005.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner as per the above terms.
SD/- JUDGE KA/-