IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.33568 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
Syndicate Bank, A Bank constituted under The Central Act 5 of 1970 Having its Head Office at Manipal And Corporate Office at Bengaluru Represented by its Central Public Information Officer, Sri. B.N.S Prasad, Deputy General Manager (Vigilance) Syndicate Bank, Corporate Office, II Cross, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru – 560 009.
(By Sri. K. Radhesh Prabhu, Advocate) AND:
1. Central Information Commission, Room No.4, Club Building, Old JNU Campus, New Delhi – 110 067. Represented by Information Commissioner.
… Petitioner 2. Sri. R. Selvaperumal, New No.24, Old No.10, First Floor, F-2, Nethaji Street, New Lakshmipuram, Chennai – 600 099.
… Respondents (By Sri. K.S. Bheemaiah, Advocate for R1; Sri. Murali B.S., Advocate for R2) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 08.05.2013 vide Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1 and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri. K. Radhesh Prabhu, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. K. S. Bheemaiah, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
Sri. Murali B. S., learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, petitioner inter alia has assailed the validity of the order dated 08.05.2013 passed by the Central Information Commission, by which the appeal preferred by respondent No.2 has been allowed and the petitioner herein has been directed to provide information as sought by respondent No.2 in the Right To Information application within thirty days.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised a singular contention that the impugned order suffers from vice of non application of mind inasmuch as no reasons have been assigned by the Central Information Commission.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the order passed by the Central Information Commission and has submitted that the information sought to be provided is for the purpose of accountability and transparency, which are sufficient reasons for supplying the information.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘S.N.MUKHERJEE V. UNION OF INDIA’, (1990) 4 SCC 594 has held that people must have confidence in the judicial or quasi judicial authorities. While emphasizing the need for assigning reasons, it was held that giving of reasons minimizes the chances of arbitrariness and hence, it is an essential requirement of the rule of law. In ‘SECRETARY AND CURATOR, VICTORIA MEMORIAL HALL V. HOWRAH GANATANTRIK NAGRIK SAMITY AND OTHERS’, (2010) 3 SCC 732, it has been held by the Supreme Court that reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. It has further been held that recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making.
6. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, the relevant extract of the impugned order reads as under:
“7. It emerges from the hearing that an investigation was conducted by the bank regarding the ATM transaction on that particular day. The investigation is already over, hence for the purpose of accountability and transparency the information sought should be provided to the appellant.
8. Respondent is directed to provide to the appellant the information sought in the RTI application within 30 days from this order.”
7. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid relevant extract of the order, it is evident that the Central Information Commission has not assigned any reasons in support of recording the conclusion. Therefore, the impugned order suffers from vice of non application of mind and cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Central Information Commission and the Central Information Commission shall ensure that the copy of the memorandum of appeal is supplied to the petitioner and shall afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties and pass a fresh order by assigning reasons within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of the order passed today.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.
sd/- JUDGE Mds/-