Allowed

Sri.P. Rameshya S/O Yallappa J v. the Karnataka State Information Commission

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2021WP/108570/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash an order by the State Information Commission imposing a penalty on the Appellate Authority. The High Court held the authority was not an Information Officer and allowed the petition, quashing the penalty.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 15.02.2017 passed by Respondent No.1 vide Annexure-Z is quashed with respect to imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner.

Sri.P. Rameshya S/O Yallappa J Vs the Karnataka State… — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^th DAY OF JUNE 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.108570/2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

SRI.P. RAMESHYA S/O YALLAPPA J AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: JOINT DIRECTOR (TRAINING), DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KUVEMPU ROAD, NAVANGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.N. HANCHINAMANI, ADV.)

¶9

AND :

¶10

1 . THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION NO.14, ARAVINDA BHAVAN, SHRAM SHAKTI BHAWAN, MITHIK SOCIETY BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2 . SRI.SATISH S/O NAGAPPA DHAREGOL SECTOR NO.61, PLOT NO:S-30, 10TH MAIN ROAD, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOTE, TQ: DIST: BAGALKOTE, KARNATAKA-587103. 3 . SRI.N.R. BONDARDE PRINCIPAL, SRI.SANGANABASAVESHWARA INDUSTRIAL TRAINING CENTRE, LACHYAN, TQ: INDI, DIST: VIJAYAPURA,

KARNATAKA-586211.

.. RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADV. FOR R1. SRI. P.G. CHIKKANARAGUND, ADV. FOR R3. RESPONDENT NO.2 IS SERVED)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER ANNEXURE-Z DATED:15.02.2017 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IS BIASED UNREASONABLE AND ONE SIDED AGAINST THE PETITIONER.

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

ORDER

¶18

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-Z imposing penalty of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RTI Act’, for short).

¶19

The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.2 has filed an application under RTI Act before the 3^rd respondent seeking certain documents. Since the 3^rd respondent has not furnished the same, he filed an appeal before the petitioner, who is also an appellate Authority. Pursuant to that appeal, the petitioner directed the 3^rd respondent to furnish relevant documents as per Annexure-P dated 15.11.2016. Since the 3^rd respondent has not furnished

¶20

¶21

the same, the 2^nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent-State Information Commission. During the pendency of the appeal before the 1^st respondent, 3^rd respondent has furnished relevant documents which were sought by the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent Sate Information Commission has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/on the petitioner on the ground that there is delay in furnishing the documents even though the petitioner is not an Information Officer and that he is only an appellate Authority. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶22

Sri. H.N. Hanchinamani, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that in respect of the information sought by the 2^nd respondent, the Management of the Institution has to furnish the records. Since the Management has not furnished the documents sought by the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent has filed an appeal before the petitioner-Appellate Authority. The petitioner directed the 3^rd respondent to furnish relevant documents vide Annexure-P dated 15.11.2016. Since the 3^rd respondent has not furnished the same, the 2^nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent-State Information Commission. In the meantime,

¶23

¶24

the 3^rd respondent furnished the documents sought by the 2^nd respondent. Even though the petitioner is not an Information Officer, without authority of law, the 1^st respondent has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner for delaying in furnishing the documents. The same is contrary to the provisions of the RTI Act and that, the Information Officer is the 3^rd respondent, who has to furnish the documents. Hence, he sought for allowing the writ petition.

¶25

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3

¶26

submitted that the Management has furnished the relevant documents to the 2^nd respondent.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 supports the impugned order.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. Perused the writ papers.

¶29

The 2^nd respondent has filed an application under Sections 6 and 7 of the RTI Act seeking certain document. Since the 3^rd respondent-Information Officer has not furnished the relevant documents, the 2^nd respondent has filed an appeal before the petitioner under Section 19 of the

¶30

¶31

RTI Act. The petitioner has directed the Management as well as the 3^rd respondent to furnish the documents sought by the 2^nd respondent. Since the Management did not furnish the documents to the 2^nd respondent, the 2^nd respondent filed an appeal before the 1^st respondent-State Information Commission. During the pendency of the appeal before the 1^st respondent, the Information Officer has furnished all the relevant documents to the 2^nd respondent. The 1^st respondent by exercising power under Section 20 of RTI Act, has imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner on the ground that there is delay in furnishing the documents.

¶32

In fact, the petitioner is not an Information

¶33

Officer. He is only an Appellate Authority. In the appeal filed by the 2^nd respondent before the petitioner under Section 19 of the RTI Act, he has directed the Information Officer to furnish the relevant records. Thereafter, during the pendency of appeal before 1^st respondent, 3^rd respondent has furnished the relevant documents. The impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent is contrary to Section 20 of the RTI Act. Penalty can be imposed when there is delay in supplying the information by the Public Information Officer. In this case,

¶34

¶35

the petitioner is not an Public Information Officer. He is only an Appellate Authority. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-Z is unsustainable and is liable to be quashed.

¶36

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.02.2017 passed by the 1^st respondent vide Annexure-Z is quashed with respect to imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the petitioner.

¶37

Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of, as they do not survive for consideration.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

kmv

Sri.P. Rameshya S/O Yallappa J v. the Karnataka State Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.P. Rameshya S/O Yallappa J v. the Karnataka State Information Commission

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

Erappa S/O Durgappa Bilagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Yuvak Mandala Lukkeri Vs the Government of Karnataka

Ravi S/O Dheerendrarao Deshpande Vs the Deputy Commissioner

S. Sriramalu S/O Sanjeevappa, Vs the Superintendent of Police

Shri.Mallikarjun S/O. Shiddalingappa Timmoli Vs the Commissioner

Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Shanga Niyamit Vs the State of Karnataka