Allowed

D.Y.Uppar v. the State Information Commissioner

Karnataka HC21 Dec 2021WP/10313/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed an order rejecting a second appeal under the RTI Act. The petitioners sought the IGP Enquiry Report. The court held that apprehended impediment to pending investigations did not justify withholding the report, directing the Public Information Officer to furnish it within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

A Writ of Certiorari quashing the impugned order and a direction to respondent No.2 to furnish a copy of the report within two weeks.

D.Y.Uppar Vs the State Information Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.10313 OF 2021 (GM - RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO.7409 OF 2020(GM - RES)

¶7

IN W.P.NO.10313/2021

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

D.Y.UPPAR, S/O LATE YANKAPPA UPPAR, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, CLASS- I CONTRACTOR, NO.148/6-1, 5^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.S.SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, MAHITI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE - 2, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (SERVICES-A), NO.310, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, (SERVICES), NO.308, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT,

¶16

¶17

3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2 AND R3; SRI.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R1 IN KIC 1576 APL 2019 (ANNEXURE L) REJECTING THE 2^ND APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶21

IN W.P.NO.7409/2020

¶22

BETWEEN:

¶23

SHARAN D BANDI, S/O D.Y.UPPAR, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, CLASS- I CONTRACTOR, NO.148/6-1, 5^TH CROSS, RMV EXTENSION, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 080.

¶24

…PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI.S.S.NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.S.SRIRANGA, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, MAHITI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, OPP. VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE - 2, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶28

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, UNDER SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT (SERVICES-A), NO.310, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶29

¶30

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEPUTY SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, (SERVICES), NO.308, WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, 3^RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶31

…RESPONDENTS

¶32

(BY SRI.B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R2 AND R3; SRI.RAJASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶33

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 01.08.2019 PASSED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNEXURE - L REJECTING THE 2^ND APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER AND ETC.

¶34

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶35

COMMON ORDER

¶36

The short grievance of the petitioners is as to nonsupply of a copy of the IGP Enquiry Report dated 28.04.2017. Learned AGA appearing for the Government and learned Panel Counsel appearing for respondent No.1-Commission oppose the petition heavily banking upon paragraph no. 6 of the impugned order dated 01.08.2019 vide Annexure-L which reads as under:

¶37

“«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è ºÁdjzÀÝ ¥ÀæwªÁ¢AiÀÄ ¥Àæw¤¢üAiÀÄÄ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀgÀÄ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð gÀªÀgÀÄ “vÀÄAUÀ¨ s ÀzÁæ AiÉÆÃd£ÉAiÀÄ JqÀzÀAqÉ ªÀÄÄRå PÁ®ÄªÉ ºÁUÀÆ EzÀgÀrAiÀÄ°è §gÀÄªÀ «vÀgÀuÁ PÁ®ÄªÉUÀ¼À 2009-10 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 2010-11 £ÉÃ ¸Á°£À

¶38

¶39

DzsÀÄ¤PÀgÀt PÁªÀÄUÁjUÀ¼À D©ðmÉæÃµÀ£ï CªÀåªÀºÁgÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtUÀ¼À PÀÄjvÀÄ d® ¸ÀA¥À£ÀÆä® E¯ÁSÉAiÀÄ «ZÀPÀëuÁ zÀ¼ÀªÀÅ K¦æ¯ï 2017gÀ°è ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀgÀ¢ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆÃjzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀæPÀgÀtªÀÅ ªÀiÁ£Àå £ÁåAiÀiÁPÀAiÀÄz À °è EvÀåxÀðPÁÌV ¨ÁQ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ, C¥ÉÃQë¹gÀÄªÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÁAiÉÄÝAiÀÄ PÀ®A 8(ºÉZï)gÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¤¨sÀðAzsÀ«gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀÄgÀ¸ÀÌj¸À®Ä §gÀÄªÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ w½¸À¯ÁVzÉ” JAzÀÄ ªÉÄÃ®ä£À«zÁgÀjUÉ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 16.10.2018gÀAzÀÄ gÀªÁ¤¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »A§gÀºÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.”

¶40

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter inasmuch as, the reason given at the above para of the impugned order cannot be a reason at all for not sharing a copy of the report in question with the citizen; what heavens would have fallen down if a copy of the Report was shared with the claimants; is not forthcoming despite vociferous submissions from the opposing counsel; their reliance on the text of Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is ill-placed.

¶41

The vehement submission of learned AGA and the learned Panel Counsel that sharing of the report may impede the proceedings in MFA No.200288/2018 & MFA No. 200287/2018 pending in the Kalaburagi Bench of this Court is un-understandable, to say the least; even that apprehension can be allayed by making it clear that the said MFAs shall not be retarded by the recipients of the Report or any others, in any way.

¶42

¶43

In the above circumstances, these writ petitions succeed; a Writ of Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order; a direction issues to respondent No.2 to furnish a copy of the subject report to the petitioner within two weeks.

¶44

Costs made easy.

¶45

Sd/JUDGE

¶46

D.Y.Uppar v. the State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

D.Y.Uppar v. the State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M N Lokesh Vs City Corporation Tumakuru

M/S R B Steel and Alloys Vs the State of Karnataka

Bhairaveshwara Cool Point Vs M/S Grant Thornton India LLP

Parameswara Vs the Police Sub Inspector

Sri Nityananda Shenoy Vs State of Karnataka

Nagamangala Taluk Vs the State of Karnataka