Allowed

Smt C Pushpalatha v. Sri K S Ravikumar

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2024WP/28979/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order imposing a penalty by the Karnataka Information Commission without proper hearing. It directed the petitioner to be served intimation for fresh hearing and directed department authorities to expedite pending appeals.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the impugned order dated 15.07.2015 and remitting the matter to the respondent for fresh consideration after proper notice.

Smt C Pushpalatha Vs Sri K S Ravikumar — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:50573 WP No. 28979 of 2017

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 28979 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SMT C PUSHPALATHA, D/O LATE K CHIKKANNA, AGED 51 YEARS, THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & CPIO, DVO - 2, BLCOK, 6TH FLOOR, VTK 2 RAJENDRA NAGAR, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE -560047.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. RA DEVANAND.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SRI KS RAVIKUMAR, S/O NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER, MAJOR, R/A NO.159-161, MY HOME PG, 1ST CROSS, BTS LAYOUT, ARAKERE, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560076. 2. THE ADDL COMMISSIONER OF COMMERCIAL TAXES & FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, HQRS -1 GANDHINAGAR, BANGALORE – 560009.

¶13

THE KARANTAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, BY ITS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, NO 14/3, 1ST FLOOR, ARAVIND BHAVAN, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560001.

¶14

RESPONDENTS

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:50573 WP No. 28979 of 2017

¶16

(BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEGDE., AGA FOR R2; SRI. K. RAJASHEKAHAR., FOR R3; R1 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY R-3 ON 15.7.2015 VIDE ANNX-N BY ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION IN IT'S ENTIRETY AND ETC,.

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following

¶22

reliefs:

¶23

“Wherefore, it is respectfully prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to:-

¶24

a. Issue a writ in the nature of Certiorari or any other writ or direction to quash the impugned order passed by respondent No.3 on 15.7.2015 in proceedings No. KIC; 715; APL; 2014, which is produced as Annexure-N by allowing the writ petition, in it’s entirety.

¶25

b. For costs.,

¶26

c. Such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the nature and circumstances of the given case.”

¶27

The grievance of the petitioner is that a penalty of `10,000/-

¶28

has been imposed by respondent No.3 without hearing the petitioner. A perusal of the impugned order at Annexure-N would indicate that the matter was posted for hearing on

¶29

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:50573 WP No. 28979 of 2017

¶30

03.08.2015 at 3:00 pm and due to unavoidable circumstance the appeal was preponed to 15.07.2015 at 3:00 pm with due intimation to both the parties. The said order does not indicate in what manner the intimation has been served on the parties, more so when the petitioner claims that no such intimation was given. Whenever any matter is preponed / advanced it is required that intimation relating thereto and notice relating thereto is served on all the parties.

¶31

In the present matter it appears that respondent No.3 itself has suo moto on its own preponed the matter due to certain unavoidable circumstances as stated therein and gone ahead with imposing a penalty which cannot be so done.

¶32

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the second appeal before respondent No.3 is still pending, perusal of the papers would indicate that the second appeal was filed in the year 2014 and the matter relating to the second appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 is required to be disposed of within time prescribed therein.

¶33

The Principal Secretary of department of Personal and Administrative Reforms is directed to look into this aspect

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:50573 WP No. 28979 of 2017

¶35

and take necessary corrective steps to ensure that the appeals field before the Karnataka Information Commission are disposed of as expeditiously as possible and if there are any vacancies to fill up the vacancies at the earliest.

¶36

A compliance report to be filed within four weeks from now.

¶37

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶38

ORDER

¶39

i. The writ petition is allowed;

¶40

ii. The impugned order dated 15.07.2015 passed by respondent No.3 in proceedings No. KIC 715 APL 2014, at Annexure-N is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted to respondent No.3 for fresh consideration;

¶41

iii. Since respondent No.1 thus served has not entered appearance before this Court, a fresh notice will be issued by respondent No.3 to both the petitioner and respondent No.1 intimating the date of appearance and thereafter proceed with the matter.;

¶42

iv. The quashing of the above order shall not come in the way of respondent No.3 passing fresh orders after hearing the parties;

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:50573 WP No. 28979 of 2017

¶45

v. Though the above petition has been disposed, relist on 30.01.2025 to report compliance of the above direction;

¶46

vi. Learned AGA is directed to bring to the notice of the Principal Secretary of department of Personal and Administrative Reforms about the above directions;

¶47

vii.Registry is directed to print the name of learned AGA for reporting compliance.

¶48

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶49

PNV

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 36

Smt C Pushpalatha v. Sri K S Ravikumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt C Pushpalatha v. Sri K S Ravikumar

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

M/S Kodagu District Co. Operative Central Bank Limited Vs Reserve Bank of India

B. Viswanath Vs the State of Karnataka

S. Nithin Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Managing Committee Vs the Karnataka State Board of Wakfs

K.K. Arun Vs Mr. Balakrishna

The Jewellers Association Vs the Union of India