IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NOS.29788/2014 & 30364-30388/2014 (GM RES) BETWEEN SRI SHARANAPPA C. ONI S/O CHANNABASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL (DUDC) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, BELAGAUM DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI H J ANANDA, ADV.) AND 1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, GATE NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, M.S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. SRI SHEETAL KUMAR B.PATIL AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/138, SRI VEERA SAVARKAR MARG, STATION ROAD, SHAHABAD, CHITAPUR TALUK, GULBARGA DISTRICT-585228. ... RESPONDENTS (BY MS./SMT. ANUJA S.A, ADV. FOR SRI SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADV. FOR R1.) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE R-1 DATED 5.5.2014 VIDE ANN-A, A1 & DATED 16.1.2014 VIDE ANN-A2 TO A7 ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR “PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP”, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri H.J.Ananda, Adv. for the petitioner.
Ms.Anuja S.A, Adv. for Sri Sharath Gowda G.B, Adv. for R-1.
These petitions are admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. In these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 5.5.2014 vide Annexure-A, A1 and dated 16.01.2014 vide Annexure A2 to A7 which applications are filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order dated 12.9.2012 fined the penalty of Rs.5,000/- imposed on him which were rejected.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that impugned order passed by the respondent is in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was asked to submit the written explanation which he furnished on 15.7.2013 however, the order imposing penalty was passed against him on 12.9.2012.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that respondent No.1 shall afford an opportunity of hearing and dispose of the appeal by a speaking order.
5. It is appropriate to mention here that the petitioner has suffered the penalty order vide order dated 12.9.2012 but he has only challenged the subsequent orders by which application for setting aside the order has been rejected. It appears that the explanation was sought for from the petitioner with regard to delay of filing explanation to show-cause notice preferred to it, the petitioner has filed explanation on 15.7.2013.
6. The order appears to have been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order dated 5.5.2014 and 16.1.2014 are hereby quashed. The respondent No.1 is directed to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to decide the same by a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petitions are disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/- CT-HR