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 NO. 49956 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
T.H. NAGAPPA S/O. LATE BASAPPA AGED 50 YEARS OCC:ASST.EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PRE SUB DIVISION THEERTHAHALLI TALUK-577 432 SHIMOGA DISTRICT. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.V. PRAKASH, ADV.) AND:
1. S. PRAKASH S/O(NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), AGE: MAJOR R/O. SULUGARU, POST:DOORAVASAPURA, THIRTHAHALLI TALUK, SHIMOGA DISTRICT-577 432.
2. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER ZILLA PANCHAYATH DIVISION SHIMOGA DISTRICT SHIMOGA-577 201. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV. FOR R2 R1 AND R3 SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 26.2.2013 VIDE ANN-D PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT AND ALSO THE ORDER DATED 15.7.2013 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT VIDE ANN-F.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. S.V.Prakash, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.G.B.Sharath Gowda, learned Counsel for the respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, has assailed the validity of the orders dated 26.02.2013 and 15.07.2013 passed by respondent No.2.
3. The facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 submitted an application on 03.05.2012 under Section 6 and 7 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by which certain information about the Well which belongs to the State Government situate by the side of Padubidri- Chikkalagod State Highway was sought. The petitioner on receipt of the aforesaid application tried to ascertain whether the well in question belongs to the concerned Grama Panchayat or Public Works Department and thereafter the petitioner forwarded the aforesaid application on 15.06.2012 to Mulubagilu Gramapanchayat with a direction to furnish information as sought by respondent No.1. Admittedly, the aforesaid information is furnished on 28.08.2012. In the mean time, the first respondent filed complaint under Section 18 of the Act on 18.06.2012. The second respondent thereupon issued show cause notice asking the petitioner to show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.250/- per day subject to a maximum of Rs.25,000/- be not imposed on the petitioner for delay in transferring the application. Thereupon by an order dated 15.07.2013 a penalty of Rs.5,000/- was imposed on the petitioner. In the aforesaid factual aspects, the petitioner approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer of Public Works Department and the well in question belongs to Mulubagilu Grama panchayat. It is further submitted that there was delay in transmission of the application to Mulubagilu Grama Panchayat as the petitioner had to ascertain the fact as to whether the well in question belongs to Public Works Department or Mulubagilu Grama Panchayat. It is further submitted that the delay in transmission of the application furnished by respondent No.1 was bonafide.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent No.2 has supported the orders passed by the respondent No.2.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
7. Admittedly, the application is filed on 03.05.2012. The same was required to be transmitted within a period of 5 days i.e., on 08.05.2012. However, the application is transmitted to the Mulubagilu Grama Panchayat on 15.06.2012. Undoubtedly, there has been a delay in transmission of the application. However, the aforesaid delay appears to be bonafide in the fact situation of the case, as the petitioner is an Assistant Executive Engineer of Public Works Department and was not in possession of information sought for by respondent No.1. The petitioner was under confusion as to whether the well in question belongs to Public Works Department or Mulubagilu Grama Panchayat. After ascertaining the aforesaid fact, the petitioner by a communication dated 15.06.2012 transmitted the application filed by respondent No.1 to the concerned Grama panchayat and thereupon the information as prayed for by respondent No.1 was supplied to him on 28.08.2012.
8. Thus, in the fact situation of the case, the delay in transmission of the application to the concerned Grama Panchayat was bonafide. However, respondent No.2 by a cryptic order has held that the information furnished by the petitioner is unsatisfactory. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 15.07.2013 insofar as it pertains to recovery of a sum of Rs.5,000/- from the petitioner is concerned is hereby quashed. The petition is allowed accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE akc/-