IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.36632 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI SYED SADIQ S/O LATE SYED ABDUL BASHID AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.705, 9TH BLOCK, VBHC APARTMENT BYAGADADENAHALLI AT POST ANEKAL TALUK BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-562 106 … PETITIONER (BY SRI.G.S.PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 073 2. THE SECRETARY/PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KONAPPANA AGRAHARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 073 3. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK PANCHAYATH KARIYAPPA ROAD, BANASHANKARI BENGALURU-560 085 4. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION MAHITHI SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001 … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA. FOR R-1 SRI.K.S.UDAY, ADV. FOR SRI C.M.NAGABHUSHAN, ADV. FOR R-2 SRI RAJASHEKAR K, ADV. FOR R-4- ABSENT R-3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER/LETTER DATED 25.02.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-B AND ORDER DATED 16.02.2017 PASSED BY THE R-4 VIDE ANNEXURE-K AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.G.S.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Y.D.Harsha, Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1, Sri.K.S.Uday, learned counsel for Sri.C.M.Nagabhushan for Respondent No.2.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has inter alia assailed the validity of the order dated 16.02.2017 passed by the State Information Commission, by which, proceeding in the appeal filed by the petitioner is closed in his absence.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 16.02.2017 on account of his illness, petitioner could not appear. However, the Appellate authority has closed the proceeding in the absence of the petitioner without affording any opportunity of hearing.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent submitted that the order passed by the State Information Commission is just and proper.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.
7. Admittedly, the impugned order has been passed in the absence of the petitioner. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner could not be present on 16.02.2017 on account of his illness. Therefore, there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance on 16.02.2017. Since the impugned order has been passed against the petitioner in his absence, I deem it proper to quash the same and remit the matter to State Information Commission to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and decide the petition by passing a speaking order within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE BNV