Sri Chamaraj H Patil Vs Commissioner

SRI.CHAMARAJ H PATIL, S/O.HANUMANTHA GOUDA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, CUM TAHSILDAR, LINGASURU, BELGAUM, AND RESIDENT OF NO.1, 1^ST MAIN, NEAR SAI BABA TEMPLE, OLD POST OFFICE, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560076.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.A.C.BALARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA 1. COMMISSIONER, Location: STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, KARNATAKA NO.302,3^RD FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJA URS ROAD, VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560001.

¶14

SRI VEERAGUNDAIAH SWAMY HIREMATH, ADVOCATE, C/O. MAHESH, R/O. NO.1-11-53/83-84, HAMOAIAH NILAYA,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:34510 WP No. 6904 of 2018

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

SHRIRAMANAGAR COLONY, RAICHUR-584101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. G B SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.VEERAGUNAIAH SWAMY HIREMATH PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R2.)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES OF 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.10.2017 AND DATED 8.1.2018 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-Q AND S AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.KIC 11584 APL 2014 dated 19.10.2017 and order bearing No.KIC 11584 APL 2014 dated 08.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 imposing a penalty of Rs.5,000/-.

¶25

(i) The petitioner claims that respondent No.2 had sought information and documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005, on 06.08.2014. The Incumbent Officer who was a Public Information Officer issued an endorsement on 01.04.2015 stating that the documents sought for by the

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:34510 WP No. 6904 of 2018

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

respondent No.2 were not available. In the meanwhile, the respondent No.2 filed a first appeal before the Assistant Commissioner on 11.09.2014. The concerned Public Information Officer did not furnish any information. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed a second appeal before the respondent No.1 on 30.10.2014 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In the said appeal, the respondent No.2 sought for compensation and the imposition of a penalty on the authorities for not furnishing the information. The respondent No.1 instructed the Tahsildar of Raichur Taluk to furnish the information and to report the same to it. Accordingly, the then Tahsildar issued an endorsement dated 01.04.2015 intimating that the documents could not be traced and that therefore the documents were not available in the office.

¶29

(ii) Thereafter, the Tahsildar proceeded on leave and in his place, an incharge Tahsildar was posted. The respondent No.1 at its hearing conducted on 24.08.2015, taking into consideration the endorsement dated 01.04.2015, directed the incharge Tahsildar to once again look into the records and furnish the same within 30 days to the respondent No.2. The

¶30

4 -

¶31

NC: 2025:KHC:34510 WP No. 6904 of 2018

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

respondent No.1 cautioned the officer that failure to furnish the documents would result in imposition of penalty. The incharge Tahsildar along with other staff searched for the documents and since the same was not traced, an intimation letter dated 04.12.2015, 08.01.2016 and endorsement dated 26.03.2016 were issued to the respondent No.2. Following this, a request was made before the respondent No.1 to drop the proceedings.

¶34

(iii) The respondent No.1 by an order dated 31.03.2016, held that the information sought for by the respondent No.2 was not furnished within the time stipulated and hence imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the incharge Tahsildar. The said incharge officer claimed that he was not responsible for payment of the penalty as the regular Tahsildar was on leave. He therefore requested to recall the order imposing Rs.10,000/- penalty on him. Since the order was not recalled, the incharge Tahsildar deposited the penalty of Rs.10,000/- by a challan dated 14.11.2016.

¶35

(iv) The petitioner claims that he assumed the office of Tahsildar, Raichur, with effect from 06.11.2016 and he had deputed a second division assistant to attend the proceedings

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:34510 WP No. 6904 of 2018

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

before respondent No.1. On 07.07.2017 the respondent no.1 held proceedings and noting that the order dated 02.06.2017 was not complied, he imposed further compensation of Rs.1,000/- payable to the respondent No.2.

¶39

(v) The respondent No.1 again imposed a further penalty of Rs.5,000/- on 19.10.2017 for not complying with the order dated 07.07.2017. The petitioner is therefore before this Court, challenging the order imposing a further penalty of Rs.5,000/- and contends that the penalty of Rs.1,000/- was paid on 08.01.2018.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.6586/2018 and WP No.6905/2018 had quashed the orders imposing penalty on the ground that the petitioner was not the incumbent Tahsildar as on the date when the application was filed for information. He also submits that earlier the incharge Tahsildar had deposited a compensation of Rs.10,000/- as ordered and therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No.1 directing the petitioner to pay

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:34510 WP No. 6904 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the Government account is illfound.

¶45

The respondent No.2 has appeared in person and submits that though the application for information was filed in the year 2014, till date the petitioner and the officers of the Revenue Department in Raichur have not furnished the information. He submits that the incharge Tahsildar did not deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/-, which was the penalty imposed for not furnishing the information and therefore, the respondent No.1 was forced to impose further compensation of Rs.1,000/payable to the respondent No.2. He contends that since the petitioner had wilfully violated the order passed by the respondent No.1, a further order was passed imposing penalty of Rs.5,000/- payable by the petitioner. He contends that the imposition of penalty of Rs.5,000/- was due to the negligence of the petitioner in not depositing compensation of Rs.1,000/payable to him. He contends that since the information is not furnished to him till date, there is no need to interfere with the impugned order. In so far as the orders passed by the Coordinate Benches of this Court in WP No.6586/2018 and WP No.6905/2018, he contends that in all those cases, the penalty

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:34510 WP No. 6904 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

was set aside on the ground that the petitioner was not liable to pay and was not responsible for furnishing the documents. However, in the instant case, he submits that the penalty was imposed on the petitioner for not complying with the order dated 07.07.2017. Thus, he contends that the orders passed in the aforesaid petitions are not applicable to the facts of this case.

¶50

I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent No.2. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 also reiterated the submissions made by the respondent No.2.

¶51

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the same was necessitated in view of the non-compliance of the order dated 07.07.2017 by the petitioner. When the respondent No.1 was considering an appeal preferred by respondent No.2 and petitioner showed absolute diffidence in complying with the order passed by respondent No.1, it had no other option than to compel the petitioner to ensure compliance of the order dated 07.07.2017. There is no error committed by the

¶52