Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey I.A.S Vs Karnataka Information Commission

SRI PANKAJ KUMAR PANDEY I.A.S., S/O SRI DEO MANI PANDEY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS SECRETRY TO GOVERNMENT, COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES DEPT, (MSME AND MINES), VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI RAJENDRA M. S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMA B N 1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, Location: GROUND FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA, HIGH COURT OF DR. DEVRAJ URS ROAD, KARNATAKA OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA, GATE No.2, BANGALORE-560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. KENGEGOWDA S/O LATE THIMME GOWDA, No.110, HONNAGIRI GOWDA STREET, YELCHENHALLI POST, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571402. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1)

¶15

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.11.2022 IN APPEAL PASSED BY THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (BENCH No.3) OF THE R1 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A) AS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, ULTRAVIRES THE PROVISION OF THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT,2005 AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE.

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶20

ORAL ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, who was working as Secretary to the Government of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries Department (MSME & Mines) from 07.04.2021 and was also serving as Secretary to the Government, Sugar Department and Textile Department, which forms part of the Commerce

¶22

and Industries Department, is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 23.11.2022 passed by respondent No.1 seeking the following reliefs;

¶23

"Wherefore, the petitioner respectfully prays this Hon'ble Court for issuance if appropriate writ, order or directions;

¶24

a) In the nature of Certiorari and quash the Order dated 23.11.2022 in Appeal No. Pª À iÁD À

¶25

14577 J¦J¯ï 2021 passed by the State Information Commissioner (Bench No.3) of the Respondent No.1 (vide Annexure A) as arbitrary, illegal, Ultra-vires the provisions of THE RIGHT TO

¶26

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

INFORMATION ACT, 2005 and in violation of principles of natural justice.

¶29

b) In the nature of declaration, declaring the action of Respondent No.1 invoking section 20(2) to direct the Petitioner to initiate disciplinary action against the Managing Director of Mysore Sugar Company Limited in terms of the Orders of the Respondent No.1 dated 13.09.2022 & 20.10.2022 in Appeal No. Pª À iÁD À 14577 J¦J¯ï 2021 (vide ANNEXURE F and H) are ultra-vires the provisions of THE REIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 and that the Petitioner would not be required to act in terms of the Order of the Respondent No.1 dated 13.09.2022 & 20.10.2022 in Pª À iÁD À 14577 J¦J¯ï 2021(vide ANNEXURE F and H).

¶30

c) Pass such other order/s as this Hon'ble court deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

2. Respondent No.2, who was the ex-employee of

¶32

Mysore Sugar Company Ltd., having been appointed as Personal Officer on contract basis, had apparently submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'Act') to the Public Information Officer of the company seeking certain information on 08.02.2021 with regard to utilisations of certain funds granted by the Government. It appears, by communication dated 22.06.2021, the information as sought for by respondent No.2 was furnished concerning utilisation of grant towards implementation of Voluntary Retirement Scheme

¶33

4 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

(VRS), and also clarified that the utilisation certificate was yet to be submitted to the State Government.

¶37

3. Not being satisfied, respondent No.2 had preferred

¶38

an appeal before the Chief Administrative Officer and thereafter, approached respondent No.1-Commission by way of further appeal. Respondent No.2 also sought further/additional information. Respondent No.1-Commission, by order dated 13.09.2022, directed the Public Information Officer of the company to furnish the additional information sought.

¶39

4. Subsequently, respondent No.1 had directed the petitioner to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the Managing Director of the Company, as he had purportedly not complied with the previous order of respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 passed another order dated 20.10.2022 observing that the petitioner herein had not reported compliance of earlier order dated 13.09.2022 and directed to take disciplinary action against the Managing Director of the Company and the petitioner was provided another opportunity to take action and report compliance. The said order dated 20.10.2022 was received at the office of the petitioner only on

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

23.11.2022 at about 04.00 p.m. However, respondent No.1, by further order dated 23.11.2022 impugned in this petition, has not only directed the Public Information Officer of the company to furnish the entire information which is already furnished, but has also directed the Chief Secretary to the State Government to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner and to submit the action taken report within a period of 30 days. It is this order which is put in question before this Court.

¶43

5. It is contented that the petitioner is not a Public Information Officer not even the appellate authority appointed under the Act. As such, invocation of the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 20 of the Act against the petitioner is untenable. It is further contented that even otherwise the order impugned has been passed without affording any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioner of being heard.

¶44

6. The impugned order of respondent No.1 directing the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner and to submit the report in this regard is illegal, without jurisdiction and authority

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

as no such power is conferred on respondent No.1 under the

¶49

provisions of the Act.

¶50

Contenting as above, reliefs are sought in the petition.

¶51

7. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 on the other hand submits that non-compliance of the directions issued by the Information Commission would result in certain actions to be taken, which are only to ensure due compliance of the provisions of the Act. It is in this spirit, the impugned order

¶52

has been passed. However, he fairly submits that the provisions contemplate recommendation and do not contemplate reporting of the action taken on such

¶53

recommendation.

¶54

8. Heard. Perused the records.

¶55

9. Paragraph 6 of the impugned order at Annexure-A read as under;

¶56

" 6. ¥ Àæ P À g À tz À zÁR¯ É U À ¼ À Ä ºÁU À Æ ª É ÄÃ®ä£ À «zÁg À g À DP É ëÃ¥ À u É Ai À Ä CA± À U À ¼ À £ À Äß ¥ À jU À t Â ¹ DAi É ÆÃU À ª À Å ¥ Àæ P À g À tz À °è P É ÆÃjg À Äª À ª À iÁ»wU É ¸ À A§A¢ü¹z À Av É C¢ü¤Ai À Äª À Ä eÁjU É ¸ À A§A¢ü¹z À Av É PÁ®A 19(8(J) CrAi À Ä°è ¤Ãq À ¯ÁVg À Äª À «± É ÃµÁ¢üPÁg À §¼ À ¹ DAi É ÆÃU À ª À Å F P É ¼ À P À Aq À Dz É Ã± À ¤Ãrg À Äv À Ûz É .

¶57

7 -

¶58

NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

DAi É ÆÃU À z À ¢£ÁAP À : 13.09.2022g À ºÁU À Æ 20.10.2022g À Dz É Ã± À z À £ À éAi À Ä ¥ À P À g À tz À ª À iÁ»w Mz À V¸ À Äª À ¸ À A§Azs À C¢ü¤Ai À Äª À Ä G®èAX¹g À Äª À ¹§âA¢Ai À Äª À g À «g À Äz À Þ DAi É ÆÃU À ª À Å ¤Ãrg À Äª À ¤¢üðµ À Ö ¤z É Ãð± À £ À P É Ì ¸ À A§A¢ü¹z À Av É P Àæ ª À Ä P É ÊU É Æ¼î®Ä À «¥s À ®gÁVg À Äª À ² æ Ã ¥ À AP À eï P À Äª À iÁgï ¥ÁAq É ( IAS ), PÁAi À Äðz À ²ðU À ¼ À Ä ºÁU À Æ ª É ÄÊ¸ À Æg À Ä ¸ À P À Ìg É P À A¥ À ¤ °«Äm É qï Czs À åP À ëg À Ä, ªÁt Â då ª À Äv À ÄÛ P É ÊUÁjPÁ E¯ÁS É , g À Æ.£ À A.135, 1£ É Ã ª À Äº À r, «PÁ¸ À ¸Ëzs À , qÁ| ©.Dgï. CA¨ É Ãq À Ìgï «Ã¢ü, Eª À g À «g À Äz À Þ ª À iÁ»w º À P À ÄÌ PÁAi É ÄÝ, 2005g À P À ®A 20(2)g À Cr ²¸ À ÄÛ P Àæ ª À Ä dg À ÄV¹, dg À ÄV¸ À ¯Áz À ²¸ À ÄÛ P Àæ ª À ÄP É Ì ¸ À A§A¢ü¹z À zÁR¯ É U À ¼ À £ À Äß v À ª À Ää ª À g À ¢Ai É ÆA¢U É DAi É ÆÃU À P É Ì ¸ À °è¸ À ®Ä ² æ Ãª À Äw ª À A¢vÁ ± À ª À iÁð, ¸ À PÁðg À z À ª À ÄÄRå PÁAi À Äðz À ²ðU À ¼ À Ä, P À £ÁðlP À gÁdå ¸ À PÁðg À , g À Æ.£ À A.320, 3£ É Ã ª À Äº À r, «zsÁ£ À ¸Ëzs À , ¨ É AU À ¼ À Æg À Ä, Eª À jU É 30 ¢£ À U À ¼ À PÁ¯Áª À PÁ± À ¤Ãrz É . ºÁU À Æ ¹.D.¸ À Ä.E.18.¸ É Ã.E.«.2001g À ¸ À Äv É ÆÛÃ¯ É Ai À Ä ¥ Àæ wAi É ÆAz À £ À Äß F Dz É Ã± À z É ÆA¢U É ®U À wÛ¸ À ¯ÁVz É . "

¶61

10. Perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that respondent No.1 has proceeded to pass the order in the nature of direction to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Karnataka not only to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner, but also to submit action taken report within 30 days. Such an order is passed under the purported exercise of sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act.

¶62

11. Sub-section (2) of Section 20 of the Act reads as under;

¶63

" 20 . Penalties.

¶64

(1) ****

¶65

8 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

(2) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause and persistently, failed to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall recommend for disciplinary action against the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under the service rules applicable to him."

¶69

12. Clearly, though there is a provision for

¶70

recommending necessary action against the erring official in not complying with the directions in the nature of issuing information sought for, there is no provision contemplated thereunder to report or to submit the action taken report. On this ground alone, the impugned order requires to be quashed.

¶71

13. As regards the other contentions raised by the petitioner of he not being an information officer or even the appellate authority appointed under the Act and he not having been heard before passing the order is concerned, the same requires to be considered at the hands of respondent No.1.

¶72

14. In that view of the matter, the following:

¶73

9 -

¶74

NC: 2026:KHC:27421 WP No. 25483 of 2022

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

ORDER

¶77

(i) The writ petition is allowed ,

¶78

(ii) The order impugned dated 23.11.2022 in Appeal No. Pª À iÁD À 14577 J¦J¯ï 2021 passed by the State

¶79

Information Commissioner (Bench No.3) of the Respondent No.1, is quashed.

¶80

(iii) Respondent No.1 is at liberty to pass orders under Section 20 of the Act, after affording an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner and adverting to the response/cause shown, if any, by the petitioner.

¶81

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶82

MV

¶83

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey I.A.S v. Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Pankaj Kumar Pandey I.A.S v. Karnataka Information Commission

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

Sri a M Subbaiah Vs the State of Karnataka

Mensa Brand Technologies Pte. Limited Vs Mohammadabbas Naushadali Patel

Sri.Prashanth Kumar Shetty Araimane Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr Ibrahim Aliyabba Vs the Authorized Officer / Chief Manager

Sumanth K G Vs the Superintendent of Police

Mr. R Srinivas Vs M/S Karvy Financial Services Limited