Allowed

Sri.N.Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC25 Jun 2024WP/4661/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition, holding that the second respondent was estopped from rejecting the petitioner's request. It quashed an endorsement dated 23.01.2023 and directed the fourth respondent to furnish the sought information within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Quashed endorsement dated 23.01.2023; directed Respondent No.4 to furnish information in Annexure-B within four weeks.

Sri.N.Puttegowda Vs State of Karnataka — RTI and Transparency | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:23419 WP No. 4661 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 4661 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. N. PUTTEGOWDA, S/O HOSATTININGEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS, R/AT KITTURU VILLAGE, BETTADAPURA HOBLI, PIRIYAPATTANA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 571 617,

¶8

Digitally signed by YAMUNA K L Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶9

REPRESENTED BY HIS SON AND GPA HOLDER, DEVARAJA K.P., S/O N. PUTTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.312, PARK AVENUE ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, ROOPANAGARA, MYSORE-570 026.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHARATH N., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KANDAYA BHAVAN, 8^TH FLOOR, KEMPEGOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 009.

¶14

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:23419 WP No. 4661 of 2023

¶15

KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, ROOM NO.103, 1^ST FLOOR, MAHITISOUDHA, DEVARAJAURS ROAD, WEST GATE VIDHANA SOUDHA -02, BENGALURU 560 001. REP. BY ITS COMMISSIONER.

¶16

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HUNSUR SUB-DIVISION, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE-571 105.

¶17

TAHASILDAR, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, PERIYAPATNA, MYSORE 571 107.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. N.B. PATIL, AGA FOR R1, R3 AND R4; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE R-4 BY SETTING ASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 23.01.2023 AT ANNEXURE-L FURTHER, DIRECT THE R-4 TO FURNISH THE INFORMATION SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER MENTIONED IN HIS APPLICATION DATED 22.02.2021 AT ANNEXURE-B

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

¶22

THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:23419 WP No. 4661 of 2023

¶24

ORDER

¶25

In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶26

“a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No.2 to take necessary action against the respondent no.4 by setting aside the endorsement dated 23.01.2023 at Annexure ‘L’ Kra.Sam:Ka.Mau.Ha/196/APL/2022, further, direct the respondent No.4 to furnish the information sought by the petitioner mentioned in his application dated 22.01.2021 at Annexure-B.

¶27

b) Pass such other or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner invited my attention to the order dated 06.06.2022 passed by the second respondent who recorded an undertaking given on behalf of the fourth respondent and directed him to provide information sought for by the petitioner. In pursuance of the same, the petitioner submitted a representation dated 07.12.2022 which was rejected by the fourth respondent vide impugned order at Annexure-L, dated 23.01.2023, who does not comply with the same and the petitioner having

¶29

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:23419 WP No. 4661 of 2023

¶30

complained to respondent No.2 in this regard, respondent No.2 proceeds to pass the impugned endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner despite the earlier order passed by them dated 06.06.2022 and as such the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned AGA and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 – Commission would support the impugned endorsement and submitted that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶32

As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the earlier order dated 06.06.2022 under which the second respondent has recorded the undertaking given by the fourth respondent and directed him to furnish the information as sought for by the petitioner, the respondent No.2 was clearly estopped from issuing the impugned endorsement rejecting the request of the petitioner and not considering his complaint in accordance with law, warranting interference by this Court in the present petition.

¶33

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:23419 WP No. 4661 of 2023

¶34

Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i) Writ Petition is hereby Allowed.

¶37

ii) Endorsement dated 23.01.2023, at Annexure ‘L’

¶38

Kra.Sam:Ka.Mau.Ha/196/APL/2022 issued by respondent No.2 is hereby quashed.

¶39

iii) Respondent No.4 is hereby directed to furnish the information sought for by the petitioner in his application at Annexure-B, dated 22.01.2021 in accordance with law within a period of Four Weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

¶42

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53

Sri.N.Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri.N.Puttegowda v. State of Karnataka

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

Smt Lakkamma Vs Pragathi Gramin Bank

M/S Aware Safety Teckniques Vs Punjab National Bank

M/S M K Agrotech Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Fertilizer Mixture Manufacturers Association of India Vs Union of India

M/S Benaka Brick Works Vs Bank of Baroda

Savyasachi Projects Vs the State of Karnataka