Partly allowed

The Public Information Officer v. the State Information Commissioner

Karnataka HC28 Jun 2021WP/30419/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of three writ petitions praying to quash orders passed by the Information Commissioner. Relying on coordinate bench orders and Supreme Court precedent, the court held the issues no longer res integra and allowed the petitions in part, setting aside the impugned orders and remitting the matter for a speaking order.

What did the court decide?

The writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned order dated 29.05.2017 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration and decision by a speaking order afte

The Public Information Officer Vs the State… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON' BLE MR. JUSTICE G. NARENDAR

¶6

W.P.No.30421/2017 (GM-RES) C/W W.P.No.30419/2017 AND W.P.No.30423/2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER CITY DIVISION, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.

¶9

... PETITIONER (COMMON)

¶10

(BY SRI.VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION #336, 2^ND GATE, 3^RD FLOOR M.S.BUILDING DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

SRI. S BHASKARAN AGE: MAJOR SON OF S.SRINIVASAN RESIDING NO.453, 5^TH CROSS 1^ST MAIN ROAD NEAR BRILLIANT ENGLISH SCHOOL

¶14

¶15

PANCHASHEELANAGAR MUDALAPALLYA BANGALORE-560 072.

¶16

... RESPONDENTS (COMMON)

¶17

(BY SRI.SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADV. FOR1 SRI. GIRISH KUMAR S., ADV. FOR R2-ABSENT)

¶18

THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 29.05.2017 VIDE ANNEX-F PASSED BY R1 AND AWARD THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION.

¶19

THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶22

learned counsel for the first respondent. There is no representation on behalf of the second respondent.

¶23

It is fairly submitted that the issue raised in

¶24

these petitions are no more res integra. The petitions considering the similar grounds urged are disposed of

¶25

by this Court by an order dated 14.06.2021 in W.P.No.6298/2017.

¶26

¶27

The order dated 14.06.2021 passed in

¶28

W.P.No.6298/2017 reads as under:

¶29

5. It is seen that the appellate authority apart from merely recounting or reciting the objections raised in some of the matters, has not proceeded to hear and consider the objections raised by the petitioner or the grounds of appeal. In fact, in respect of one application, it was contended that if the details of the complaint are revealed, it may lead to endangering the life of the informant; that even cases, where objections of such nature are raised, the Commission has proceeded to pass an order in a mechanical fashion and as if it were an interim direction which in reality is the final order and it is not a speaking order as it is not supported by any reasons.

¶30

7. On perusal of the orders impugned, it is apparent that the conclusions are not supported by any reasons nor reasons ascribed for rejecting the grounds of appeal. In the absence of such reasons, the orders are rendered non-speaking orders.

¶31

¶32

9. Further reliance is also placed on the observations of the Apex Court reported in AIR 2012 SC 864 – CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND ANOTHER VS. STATE OF MANIPUR AND ANOTHER. Paragraph 18 reads as under: “18- The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission has no power under Section 18 to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. Remedy for such person who has been refused information is provided under Section 19 of Act. Nature of power under Section 18 is supervisory in character whereas procedure under Section 19 is appellate procedure and a person who is aggrieved by refusal in receiving information which he has sought for can only seek redress in manner provided in statute, namely, by following procedure under Section 19. Section 7 read with Section 19 provides complete statutory mechanism to person who is aggrieved by refusal to receive information. Such person has to get information by following aforesaid statutory provisions. Sections 18 and 19 of Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a substitute for the other. It may be that sometime in statute for the other. It may be that sometime in statute words are used by way of abundant caution. Same is not position here. Here completely different procedure has been enacted under Section 19. If the interpretation advanced by the learned Counsel for the respondent is

¶33

¶34

accepted, in that case, Section 19 will become unworkable and especially Section 19(8) will be rendered surplusage. Such an interpretation is totally opposed to the fundamental cannons of construction.”

¶35

After analyzing the law and the provisions,

¶36

has held in paragraphs 20 and 21 as under:

¶37

“20- In the instant cases, the second respondent had filed five applications under Section 6(1) of the Act as per Annexure ‘A’. According to him, he had not received the full information. That is why he has filed the applications under Section 18(1) of the Act. The first respondent has registered the complaints as KIC Nos.8328 PTN 2010, 8329 PTN 2010, 8334 PTN 2010, 8335 PTN 2010 AND 8338 PTN 2010. Five orders have been passed as per Annexure ‘C’ permitting the second respondent to peruse the records in the office of the first petitioner-company on 21-4-2011. The petitioner was directed to permit the second respondent to peruse the records available in his office. The complaints were adjourned to 3-8-2011. All these five complaints were again taken up for consideration on 30-11-2011 and on that day, orders have been passed in all the five complaints calling upon the petitioners to show cause why compensation should not be awarded to the second respondent under Section 19(8)(b) of the Act. The case was posted to 8-2-2012. The petitioners have filed objections to the show cause notice as per Annexure ‘F’. The first respondent has passed the orders at Annexure ‘G’ in the same case imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- each on three officers mentioned therein. The Commission has

¶38

¶39

not closed the cases. It has further adjourned the case to 27-7-2012.

¶40

21- The procedure adopted by the first respondent is clearly not permissible in law. If the second respondent is aggrieved by the orders passed by the Public Information Officer under Section 7 of the Act, he has to file an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act before the appellate authority and in case he is aggrieved by the action or inaction of the appellate authority, he has to file a second appeal under Section 19(3). Filing of an application under Section 18(1) of the Act complaining the alleged inaction of the Public Information Officer is clearly not permissible in law.”

¶41

11. In the opinion of the Court, the law laid down by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions disposed of on 16-42013 is squarely applicable to the facts of the instant petition also.

¶42

12. In that view of the matter, writ petition is allowed-in-part. The orders impugned are set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent. The consideration and the disposal shall be within an outer limit of four months

¶43

¶44

from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶45

Costs made easy.

¶46

Submissions of the learned counsel for the parties is placed on record. The writ petitions are allowed in part. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Appellate Authority for reconsideration and decision by a speaking order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner.

¶47

Consideration and disposal of the appeal shall be within an outer limit of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶48

SD/JUDGE

¶49

mpk/*

The Public Information Officer v. the State Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Public Information Officer 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri K S Krishna Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Thippa Reddy S T Vs State of Karnataka

Shri H Y Manjunath Vs the Special Land Acquisition Officer

The Public Information Officer Vs the State Information Commissioner

The Public Information Officer Vs the State Information Commissioner

H. D. Lingaraju Vs the State of Karnataka