Disposed¶31

Sri Srinivasaiah v. the Commissioner Karnataka Information Commission

Karnataka HC16 Jan 2025WP/1962/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru), single judge (Jyoti Mulimani, J.), 16.01.2025, WP No. 1962 of 2021 (GM-RES), NC: 2025:KHC:1781. Certiorari against Karnataka Information Commission order in No.KIC 4675 APL 2019 imposing Rs.10,000 penalty on Secretary of Hesarghatta Gram Panchayath for belated furnishing of information sought by Pradeep Kumar.A; penalty held exorbitant and reduced to Rs.2,000 payable within four weeks; writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Penalty reduced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.2,000/-; petitioner directed to pay Rs.2,000/- within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order. ¶31

Sri Srinivasaiah Vs the Commissioner Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 1962 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI SRINIVASAIAH S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/AS SECRETARY, HESARGHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 088.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. P.N.NANJA REDDY., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, INFORMATION SOUDHA, DEVRAJ URS ROAD, VIDHANA SOUDHA, WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

PRADEEP KUMAR.A MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.338, KASAGHATTAPURA, JANATA COLONY, 5^TH CROSS, SILVEPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 088.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Sri.P.Nanja Reddy., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.

¶23

Notice to the respondents was ordered on 27.08.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.

¶24

The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the first respondent in No.KIC 4675 APL 2019 vide Annexure-J.

¶25

Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers

¶26

with care.

¶27

The second respondent Pradeep Kumar.A had sought certain information. It appears that the petitioner

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021

¶29

Srinivasaiah had failed to furnish the information well in time. Hence, the second respondent had filed an appeal before the first respondent - the Karnataka State Information Commission. The first respondent vide order dated 13.11.2020 passed the order and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the petitioner for furnishing the information belatedly. The Secretary of the Panchayath has assailed the order of the first respondent in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

¶30

It is not in dispute that the information sought by the second respondent was furnished belatedly. Taking note of the material on record, the first respondent imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/-. No doubt under the provisions of the Act, the Karnataka State Information Commission has power to impose penalty. However, in my view, the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- is exorbitant. Hence, this Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).

¶31