Dismissed

Smt Rohini K v. the Karnataka State Information Commission

Karnataka HC13 Oct 2023WP/18893/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order imposing a fine under the RTI Act. The Court held the penalty was valid as the PIO unreasonably refused information and the appellate order was correct in upholding the right to information.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition dismissed; the petitioner is liable to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/ if information not yet furnished.

Smt Rohini K Vs the Karnataka State Information… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18893 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT. ROHINI K, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, INFORMATION DEPARTMENT, UDUPI DISTRICT, UDUPI - 576 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. SHIVANANDA D.S, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, 3RD FLOOR, GATE NO. 2, MULTISTORY BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶13

SRI. IQBAL KUTTAR, AGED MAJOR, PRESIDENT EDITORS CLUB, NO. F-6, MEGA PUBLICITY, POLYIMAR HOUSE, NELLIKAI ROAD, MANGALORE, DAKSHINA KANNADA DIST. - 575 001.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. G. B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; IQBAL KUTTAR - (PARTU IN PERSON) )

¶16

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 4.2.2015 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN COMPLAINT NO.9829/2013 VIDE ANNX-A TO THE PRESENT PETITION AND ETC.,

¶18

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

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner is before this Court challenging an order dated 04.02.2015 passed by respondent No.1 in appeal No.9829/2013.

¶21

The facts in brief are that respondent No.2 filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, ('The Act of 2005' for short) seeking the following information:

¶22

1. 2013 d£ÀªÀj wAUÀ¼À°è vÀªÀÄä E�ÁSÉAiÀÄ ªÀw¬ÄAzÀ zÀ.PÀ. f�ÉèAiÀÄ ¥ËæqsÀ±Á�Á Vjd£À «zÁåyðUÀ¼À ¥ÀæªÁ¸ÀPÁÌzÀ RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À ¥ÀnÖ.

¶23

2. ¸ÀzÀj RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À MlÄÖ ©®ÄèUÀ¼À ¥Àæw.

¶24

3. ¸ÀzÀj RZÀÄð-ªÉZÀÑUÀ¼À ªÉÇÃZÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ¥Àæw.

¶25

4. G�ÁSÁ gÀ²Ã¢ EvÁå¢UÀ½zÀÝgÉ CzÀgÀ ¥Àæw.

¶26

5. ¸À¢æ ¥ÀæªÁ¸ÀPÉÌ §¼À¹zÀ §¹ì£À «ªÀgÀ ¨ÁrUÉ ¸ÀAzÁAiÀÄzÀ ¥Àæw.

¶27

The Public Information Officer rejected the request

¶28

of the petitioner as per Annexure-'C' holding that the information sought for was not "Public Information" as defined under the Act of 2005. The respondent No.2 filed an appeal

¶29

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶30

before respondent No.1 under Section 18(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner opposed the appeal contending that the petitioner being the President of the Editors Club, D.K, was not entitled to the information. It relied upon an order passed by the Central Information Commission dated 27.06.2006. It also contended that the information which is available in a particular form can be provided and the information sought for by the petitioner in a different form was not available with the Public Information Officer. Hence, it could not be provided. In support of its claim, the petitioner relied upon an order passed by the Information Commission dated 31.08.2006 and an order passed by the Central Information Commission dated 21.12.2006. It also claimed that the information sought for related to the manner of functioning of the State Government and its economic interests and therefore, respondent No.2 was not entitled to the said documents. Further, it claimed that respondent No.2 had obtained all the documents on an earlier occasion and therefore, he was not entitled to receive the said documents again. It was also claimed that there was no public interest involved in the information sought for by respondent No.2.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶32

The respondent No.1 after considering the objections filed by the Public Information Officer/petitioner, rejected the objections and allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 and directed the petitioner to furnish information and also imposed fine of Rs.2,000/- upon the petitioner for not furnishing the information.

¶33

Being aggrieved by the imposition of fine, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶34

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent No.1 was bound to hear the petitioner before passing an order of penalty and therefore, respondent No.1 committed an error in imposing penalty. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of High Court of Madras in the case of PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, VILLUPURAM DIST., CENTRAL CO-OP.BANK LTD. AND OTHERS Vs. TAMIL NADU INFORMATION COMMISSION AND OTHERS reported in 2010 SCC online Mad 6522 . He further contended that as per the endorsement dated 24.09.2013, respondent No.2 was directed to contact the Director of Department of Information, Bangalore, and that respondent No.2 without following the

¶35

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶36

directions had straight away filed an appeal before respondent No.1.

¶37

Learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended

¶38

that the information sought for by respondent No.2 was indeed public information which was available with the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner could not have denied the information on specious grounds. He further contended that respondent No.1 took cognizance of the fact that the petitioner deliberately refused the information on thoroughly unjustifiable grounds and therefore respondent No.1 was compelled to impose a nominal fine of Rs.2,000/- to be recoverable from the salary of the petitioner.

¶39

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the respondents.

¶40

A perusal of the information sought for by the petitioner discloses that he did not seek for any personal information of the petitioner. The information sought for also indicates that there was some element of public interest and certainly was the "Public Information" within the meaning of

¶41

6 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶42

Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005. The petitioner who had earlier denied the request of respondent No.2 on the ground that it was not Public Information as defined in Section 2(f), improved

¶43

its stance in the objections filed to the appeal filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1, by contending that:

¶44

i. There was no public interest involved in the disclosure of the information.

¶45

ii. That the petitioner was not a person interested to seek for information.

¶46

iii. That the information sought for by respondent No.2 was not in the form sought for.

¶47

The respondent No.1 after perusing the information sought for by respondent No.2 was satisfied that the information was within the domain of the petitioner and therefore, respondent No.1 directed the petitioner to furnish the information. Respondent No.1 has considered the conduct of the petitioner in deliberately withholding the information to respondent No.2 and therefore, it was of the opinion that the petitioner had without reasonable cause refused to furnish information within the time specified, compelling respondent No.2 to approach the Appellate Authority. Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 reads as follows:

¶48

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶49

1. "Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees:

¶50

Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him:

¶51

Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be.

¶52

2. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or

¶53

8 - NC: 2023:KHC:37447 WP No. 18893 of 2015

¶54

knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him."

¶55

A perusal of Section 20 of the Act, 2005 shows that respondent No.1 was entitled to impose penalty at the time of deciding the appeal itself, if it was of the opinion that the Public Information Officer without reasonable cause had refused to furnish the information. Thus, there is no error committed by respondent No.1 in imposing fine of Rs.2,000/-.

¶56

In that view of the matter, this writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed . If the petitioner has already furnished the information, the fine shall be restricted to a sum of Rs.2,000/- and if the petitioner has failed to furnish the information, the petitioner is liable to pay a fine of Rs.25,000/to respondent No.2 within a period of one month from today.

¶57

CT: BHK

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

Smt Rohini K v. the Karnataka State Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Rohini K 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K Shiva Rama Rao Vs Sycon Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Smt. Pushpavathi Vs State of Karnataka

G. N. Krishna Swamy Vs Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board

Gold Coins Hotels and Resorts Limited Vs Mohammed Nissar

Gold Coins Hotels and Resorts Limited Vs Mohammed Nissar

Sri K C Lokesha Vs District Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe