Allowed¶82

Sanjay Y Jagatap v. Administrative Officer (Incharge)

Karnataka HC29 Oct 2025WP/16245/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 Section 6(1) application for employee's service details; third-party access to personal information (leave, salary); First Appellate Authority rejection at Annexure-C dated 15.03.2017 unchallenged; respondent No.1's order dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-A) directing PIO, Directorate of Sericulture, Bengaluru, to disclose information set aside; writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India allowed; High Court of Karnataka, E.S. Indiresh, J., 29 October 2025.

What did the court decide?

Setting aside of respondent No.1's communication dated 20.03.2017 (Annexure-A) directing the Public Information Officer, Directorate of Sericulture, to provide information to respondent No.2; writ petitions allowed. ¶82

Sanjay Y Jagatap Vs Administrative Officer… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 29^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 16245 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶8

C/W

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO. 14339 OF 2017 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 16243 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶10

IN WP No. 16245/2017

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SANJAY Y JAGATAP

¶13

S/O LATE K.YESHWANTH RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT #2010/A (NEW NO.17), HEMA NIVAS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 3^RD STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR D BLOCK, BANGALORE-560 010.

¶14

Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

(BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

…PETITIONER

¶18

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (INCHARGE) AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF SERICULTURE 5^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶19

CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF SERICULTURE 5^TH FLOOR,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.

¶24

SRI.K.S.UMESH S/O LATE SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT #54, CHAITANYA, OPP. H.P.GAS OFFICE, WARD NO.27 RAMANAGARAM-562 159.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND R2, R3-SERVED)

¶27

THIS WRT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE R.T.I APPLICATIONS WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.

¶28

IN WP NO. 14339/2017

¶29

BETWEEN:

¶30

SANJAY Y JAGATAP S/O LATE K YESHWANTH RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/A #2010/A (NEW NO.17), HEMA NIVAS, 7^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR D BLOCK BANGALORE-560 010

¶31

...PETITIONER

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

(BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶35

AND:

¶36

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF SERICULTURE 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BANGALORE--560 001

¶37

SRI K S UMESH S/O LATE SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/A #54, CHAITANYA OPP H.P.GAS OFFICE WARD NO.27, RAMANAGARAM-562159

¶38

...RESPONDENTS

¶39

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1, SRI.M.RAJASHEKAR, ADVO FOR R2)

¶40

THIS WRT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.20.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.

¶41

IN WP NO. 16243/2017

¶42

BETWEEN:

¶43

SANJAY Y JAGATAP S/O LATE K YESHWANTH RAO AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶44

R/A # 2010/A (NEW NO 17) HEMA NIVAS 7^TH MAIN ROAD,

¶45

3^RD STAGE,

¶46

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

HC-KAR

RAJAJINAGAR D BLOCK

BANGALORE - 560001

...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI.T.P.MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE)

¶52

AND:

¶53

ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (INCHARGE) AND PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER DIRECTORATE OF SERICULTURE 5^TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶54

CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER DIRECTOR OF SERICULTURE 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001

¶55

SRI K.S.UMESH S/O LATE SHIVANNA R/A # 54, "CHAITANYA", OPP. H.P.GAS OFFICE, WARD NO.27, RAMANAGARAM-562159.

¶56

...RESPONDENTS

¶57

(BY SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 AND 2, SR.M.RAJASHEKAR, ADVO FOR R3)

¶58

THIS WRT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE R.T.I APPLICATIONS WHICH HAS BEEN FILED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ETC.

¶59

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR 'PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP', THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶62

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶63

ORAL ORDER

¶64

In these writ petitions, the petitioner is challenging

¶65

the order passed by respondent No.1, directing the Public Information Officer of Directorate of Sericulture, Bengaluru, to provide information to respondent No.2 herein.

¶66

Parties are referred to as per their ranking in W.P.No.14339/2017.

¶67

Sri.T.P.Muthanna, learned counsel appearing for

¶68

the petitioner, referred to the order passed by the First Appellate Authority at Annexure-C wherein the First Appellate Authority has rejected the claim made by respondent No.2 herein, however, respondent No.1 has passed the order, ignoring the rejection of the appeal by

¶69

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

the First Appellate Authority as per Annexure-C and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court.

¶72

Per contra, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate invited the attention of this Court to the provisions under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and submitted that the details sought by the petitioner or by respondent No.2 herein are the personal details of the leave, salary and such other issues and such aspects which cannot be made known to the third parties unless the applicant made out a case for the relevant purpose.

¶73

In the light of the submission made by the

¶74

learned counsel appearing for the parties, respondent No.2 has made an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. As per Annexure-B, the service details of the petitioner herein which came to be rejected and the same was confirmed by the First Appellate Authority as per Annexure-C dated 15.03.2017.

¶75

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:43363 WP No. 16245 of 2017 C/W WP No. 14339 of 2017 WP No. 16243 of 2017

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

A perusal of the writ petitions would indicate

¶79

that respondent No.1, without considering the order passed at Annexure-C, has directed the Department Personnel to provide information ignoring the rejection of

¶80

the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 herein. Therefore, the rejection of the claim made by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-C is unchallenged.

¶81

Therefore, I am of the view that the

¶82

communication dated 20.03.2017 at Annexure-A issued by respondent No.1 requires to be set aside in these writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed.

¶83

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶84

¶85

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Sanjay Y Jagatap v. Administrative Officer (Incharge)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Y Jagatap v. Administrative Officer (Incharge)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. S. M. Pharmaceuticals Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Drugs Logistics and

Sri Narasimha Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Infii Solar Solutions India Pvt. Ltd. Vs Canara Bank

Telecom Employees Co-Operative Vs the Deputy Commissioner of

M/S J P Enterprises Vs the Chief Manager/Authorised Officer

Telecom Employees Co-Operative Vs the Deputy Commissioner of