Allowed

Suresh Gowda v. the Chief Information Commissioner

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2021WP/8541/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the Karnataka High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Information Commissioner to dispose of two pending second appeals filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 within one month due to inaction and violation of statutory time limits.

What did the court decide?

Issued a writ of mandamus directing the Chief Information Commissioner to dispose of second appeals bearing No. KIC 17981 APL 2016 and KIC 1157 APL 2017 within one month.

Suresh Gowda Vs the Chief Information Commissioner — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 8541 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SURESH GOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS PRESIDENT, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KARNATAKA, VIDYARTHIGALA POSHAKARA JAGHRUTHI VEDIKE (R) NO.12, DEVINAGARA MAIN ROAD LOTTEGOLLAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 094

¶9

... PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SMT.SUMANA HEGDE, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (I/C), KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, MAHITHI SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶13

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER B.E.O OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC INSTRUCTION MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU NORTH -02 BENGALURU – 560 003

¶14

¶15

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER B.E.O OFFICE OF THE PUBLIC INSTRUCTION YELAHANKA, BENGALURU NORTH – 04 BENGALURU – 560 064

¶16

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT B.E.O MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU NORTH BENGALURU – 560 003

¶17

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT B.E.O, YELAHANKA BENGALURU NORTH -4 BENGALURU – 560 064

¶18

... RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI A.C.BALARAJ, AGA FOR R-2 TO R-5 SRI G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R-1)

¶20

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO CONSIDER AND TO DISPOSE OF THE SECOND APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE PETITIONER UNDE SECTION 19(3) SHOULD BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE APPEAL AND THE TIME MAY BE EXTENDED TO PERIOD NOT EXCEEDING A TOTAL OF 45 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF FILING THE APPEAL AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

¶24

ORDER

¶25

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal, quash endorsement dated 21.11.2016, direct respondents to pay penalties and to initiate action and for other appropriate reliefs.

¶26

2. The brief facts of the case are :

¶27

The petitioner is the President of Bangalore Urban District Karnataka Vidyarthigala Poshakara jaghruthi Vedike (R). The petitioner is taking up the cause of the students. In pursuance to the same the petitioner approached the respondent No.2 for certain information on 22.09.2016 and 26.09.2016 pertaining to Shree Vidhyashree Public School and Godwin Public School respectively, by filing an application under Section 6(1) and 7(1) under Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short ‘the Act’), as per Annexures-A and B to the writ petition.

¶28

Respondent No.2 and 3 after receipt of such applications issued an endorsement dated 21.10.2016

¶29

¶30

and 29.09.2016, vide Annexures-C and D respectively, wherein information was not provided and the petitioner was directed to approach the school for the said information.

¶31

Aggrieved by the same the petitioner approached respondent No.4 and 5, which is the first Appellate Authority under the Act to redress their grievances. Respondent No.4 and 5 also denied the information sought for by the petitioner and issued an endorsement dated 21.11.2016, as per Annexure-E.

¶32

Aggrieved by the orders of the respondent No.4 and 5, petitioner preferred second appeal before the respondent No.1 bearing No. KIC 17981 APL 2016 and KIC 1157 APL 2017 respectively. When the said appeal is pending, in view of urgency petitioner approached respondent No.1 to hear and dispose of the appeal at an early date. Respondent No.1 assured that the appeal would be disposed of within 30 days, but since 2017-18 till today no orders have been passed.

¶33

¶34

It is stated that the said appeals would be

¶35

heard on seniority basis and no orders have been passed yet. Aggrieved by the in action on the part of the respondent No.1, petitioner approached this Court seeking relief of mandamus to direct respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeals expeditiously.

¶36

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contends that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable with regard to prayer sought for at Sl. No.(1) to (e) as the grievance of the petitioner is pending adjudication before the respondent No.1 and no decision is taken yet. Therefore, petition would be premature and hence seeks to dismiss the writ petition.

¶37

Learned AGA representing respondent Nos.2 to 5 submits that the petition may not be maintainable in view of the appeals which are pending adjudication before the respondent No.1. Therefore, he also seeks for dismissal of the present writ petition.

¶38

During the course of arguments Smt. Sumana Hegde, learned counsel for petitioner submits

¶39

¶40

that she restricts her prayer to only prayer (a) and further submits that if a direction is issued to the respondent No.1 to dispose of the appeal expeditiously, then her purpose would be met. Learned counsel for petitioner also brings to the notice of this Court Section 19, which deals with the appeals, wherein a person is not received the decision within the time prescribed in Clause (a) of sub-Section (1), then an appeal could be preferred. Sub-Section (6) of Section 19 of the Act, reads as under:

¶41

“(6) An appeal under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) shall be disposed of within thirty days of the receipt of the appeal or within such extended period not exceeding a total of forty-five days from the date of filing thereof, as the case may be, for reasons to be recorded in writing.”

¶42

In view of the specific provision provided under the Act, respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority is bound to dispose of the appeal within a period of 30 days and not later than 45 days from the date of filing of the appeal.

¶43

¶44

In the present case on hand, it is seen that the appeals are filed during the year 2016-17 and no orders have been passed till date. In view of the specific provisions stipulated under sub-Section (6) Section 19 of the Act, respondent No.1 is duty bound to take up the appeal on priority basis and dispose of the appeals within the time frame.

¶45

Under the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct the respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority, The Chief Information Commissioner (I/c), Karnataka Information Commission, Mahithi Soudha, Bangalore, to dispose of the appeals preferred by the petitioner in case bearing No. KIC 17981 APL 2016 and KIC 1157 APL 2017, as the same would be in the interest of petitioner and in conformity with the Act. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

The writ petition is disposed of. A writ of mandamus is issued to the respondent No.1 – Appellate Authority, The Chief Information Commissioner (I/c),

¶48

¶49

Karnataka Information Commission, Mahithi Soudha, Bangalore, to dispose of the appeals preferred by the petitioner bearing No. KIC 17981 APL 2016 and KIC 1157 APL 2017, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

Suresh Gowda v. the Chief Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Gowda v. the Chief 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

Sri. D.K. Krishna Raju Vs General Manager

Mohammed Haneef Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Sri Surendran Thampi Vs Karnataka Industrial Areas

Press Trust of Sagar(R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Sangappa @ Sangemesh Vs the Karnataka Lokayukta

K.Sridhar Vs the Deputy Commissioner (Food)