Disposed

Shri. Ramegowda v. the Karnataka Information Commission

Karnataka HC29 Mar 2023WP/57907/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected the petitioner's plea to quash the First Appellate Authority's order directing record inspection. The Court held the application was incomplete as it lacked specific file details. Petitioner was directed to appear for inspection on 20.04.2023, with a warning of contempt action for non-compliance.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to inspect records on 20.04.2023 or intima nearest future date; impugned direction to inspect upheld.

Shri. Ramegowda Vs the Karnataka Information Commission — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 57907 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 57907 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SHRI. RAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, # 429, 7TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS H BLOCK, RAMAKRISHNANAGAR MYSURU-570022.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. HARIPRASAD. M.B, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, MAHITI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. REP. BY THE CHIEF

¶10

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER.

¶11

THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, PANDAVAPURA, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 434. REP. BY THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, PANDAVAPURA.

¶12

Digitally signed by GURURAJ D Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, NAGAMANGALA-571432, REP. BY ITS TAHSILDAR.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR.K, ADVOCATE FOR R1, SRI. V.SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R2 AND R3)

¶16

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER IN THE IMPUGNED IN APPEAL DATED 30.07.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 AS PER ANNEXURE-D AS ARBITRARY AND UNREASONABLE AND TO DIRECT THE R-3 PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-A UNDER TIME LIMIT AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

WP No. 57907 of 2018

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Challenging order dated 30.07.2018 passed by

¶22

respondent no.1 as per Annexure-D and for issuance of direction to respondent no.3 to furnish information, as sought for by petitioner in application (Annexure-A) and for imposition of penalty under Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005

¶23

(' RTI Act ', for short), this writ petition is filed.

¶24

In writ petition, it is stated that petitioner is a retired Government Servant and public-spirited citizen. He had filed application under Section 6(1) of RTI Act seeking information about alienation of land bearing Sy.no.4/4 to extent of 0.23 guntas as per alienation no.3/80-81 dated 24.10.1980 and 21.10.1981 of Bindiganavile village in favor of Smt. Rathnamma. Information was sought from office of respondent no.3 - Public Information Officer. Since, information was not provided, applicant/petitioner filed appeal as per Annexure-B before respondent no.2.

¶25

On 22.10.2016, respondent no.3 issued endorsement to petitioner stating that record sought for was not available with it. Assailing same, applicant/petitioner preferred appeal

¶26

¶27

WP No. 57907 of 2018

¶28

before respondent no.1. Under impugned order, respondent no.1, directed petitioner to inspect records of respondent no.3. Aggrieved thereby, this writ petition is filed.

¶29

In writ petition, it is stated that after passing of impugned order, petitioner unsuccessfully visited office of respondent no.3 on 10.09.2018, 24.09.2018, 04.10.2018 and 10.10.2018 to inspect documents, due to non-availability of Public Information Officer.

¶30

Despite making representation to Tahsildar, there was no response. Further, it is stated that record of Sy.no.4/4 of Bindiganavile Village presently stands in name of Smt.Rathnamma D/o T.B.Kempegowda and column no.11 of record of rights showed her name and that an extent of 0.10 guntas was alienated without mentioning any basis. It is also contended that direction issued to petitioner to inspect records from office of respondent no.3 would be futile as respondent no.3 has already issued endorsement stating that no such record was available with it. Therefore, it was sought for quashing impugned endorsement and to direct respondent no.3 to furnish information as sought for.

¶31

On other hand, learned counsel for respondent no.1 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondents

¶32

¶33

WP No. 57907 of 2018

¶34

no.2 and 3 submitted that in application, particulars of file or

¶35

record, copy of which was sought, not mentioned and in absence of same or particulars, as would enable them to identify record to issue a copy, non-compliance could not be alleged and application seeking information was improper. Under such circumstances, direction issued by respondent no.1 permitting petitioner to inspect records of respondent no.3 would be fully justified.

¶36

Heard learned counsel and perused writ petition record.

¶37

From above submission, it is seen that petitioner had filed application for furnishing information about alienation no.3/80-81 dated 24.10.1980 and 21.10.1981 in respect of land bearing Sy.no.4/4 of Bindiganavile village respectively from beginning to year 2015.

¶38

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, information is defined as follows:

¶39

“means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force"

¶40

¶41

WP No. 57907 of 2018

¶42

And definition of right to information under Section 2(j)(i)

¶43

of RTI Act are as under:

¶44

"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to —

¶45

(i) inspection of work, documents, records;

¶46

(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records;

¶47

(iii) certified samples of material;"

¶48

Since, definition of information is restricted to be

¶49

any form, record, document, memo, e-mail, opinions and like, applicant is required to mention particular file number or order number for furnishing of record. In absence, application would be incomplete, especially, in light of meaning assigned to record as including any document, manuscript or file etc., definition of RTI Act.

¶50

In instant case, applicant is referring to entry in column no.11 of record of rights at Annexure-F1 pertaining to Sy.no.4/4, wherein it is stated that in respect of 10 guntas alienation granted. Same however does not refer to any order. Therefore to ascertain same, petitioner has been directed to inspect records of respondent no.3, which would enable him to seek information thereafter. Under such circumstances,

¶51

¶52

WP No. 57907 of 2018

¶53

impugned direction issued by respondent no.1 would not call for interference.

¶54

In so far as non-availability of respondent no.3 on dates mentioned, it would be appropriate to direct petitioner to appear before respondent no.3 on 20.04.2023 at 11.00.a.m, on which date respondent no.3 shall make records available for inspection of petitioner. In case of inspection of record is not possible on said date due to any unavoidable intervening circumstances, nearest future date to be intimated to petitioner.

¶55

It is clarified that failure to comply with direction would render respondent no.3 open for action under Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

¶56

With above observation, this writ petition is disposed off .

¶57

Sd/JUDGE

¶58

Shri. Ramegowda v. the Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ramegowda v. the Karnataka 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

Shri S B Ashok Vs Union of India

Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Smt Poornima

Sri Thimmappa Vs the Registrar

K Prakash Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. N. Babu Reddy Vs Karnataka State Commission Schedule Caste

The Managing Director Vs Sri Ravindra