Allowed¶44

P. Prasanna Kumar v. Karnataka Information Commission

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/619/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 Section 19(3) penalty on Public Information Officer quashed; Karnataka High Court allows WP No. 619 of 2024 (GM-RES) against Karnataka Information Commission order dated 03.11.2023 in KIC/10058/APL/2023; delay in furnishing information on transfer of revenue entries for 2010-11 held attributable to records not being immediately located; information furnished without lapse; BBMP Assistant Revenue Officer/Public Information Officer; penalty of Rs.25,000 set aside; interim order 22.01.2024 suspending penalty; second respondent M Srinivas Murthy; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; the order dated 03.11.2023 in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 (Annexure-J) imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner is quashed. ¶44

P. Prasanna Kumar Vs Karnataka Information… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Petition allowed; the order dated 03.11.2023 in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 (Annexure-J) imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000 on the petitioner is quashed.

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the penalty of Rs.25,000 imposed by the State Chief Information Commissioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 on the petitioner (Public Information Officer) for delay in furnishing information could be sustained when the delay was because the records could not be immediately located and the information was furnished thereafter.

¶38

Court's answer

It was brought out on record indisputably that the delay in furnishing the information was because the records could not be immediately located and that the information was furnished thereafter without lapse.

¶44

Ratio / Principle

The impugned order dated 03.11.2023 in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 (Annexure-J) cannot be sustained and is quashed; the petition is allowed.

¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (B M Shyam Prasad, J.) allowed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution filed by a Public Information Officer and Assistant Revenue Officer of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike against the order dated 03.11.2023 of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission, in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 (Annexure-J), which imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000 under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for failure to furnish information sought by the second respondent (application dated 26.08.2022) within the prescribed 30 and 45 day periods. Held: the record indisputably showed that the delay occurred because the records could not be immediately located and that the information was furnished thereafter without lapse; the impugned order could not be sustained and was quashed. An interim order dated 22.01.2024 had suspended the direction to pay the penalty. The petition also challenged an intimation dated 12.12.2023 bearing No. SECY/03/2023 (Annexure-K), which was not separately dealt with in the operative order.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1300 WP No. 619 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 619 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

P. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE POTHANNA, AGED 53 YEARS, WORKING AS PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ARO, MATTIKERE SUBDIVISION BRUHAT BANGALURU MAHA NAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560054.

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION 2^ND FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:1300 WP No. 619 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

M SRINIVAS MURTHY AGE MAJOR, NO.12, GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET, JALAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 013.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2023 BY THE R1 IN KIC/10058/APL/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; 2) DIRECTION TO QUASH THE INTIMATION DATED 12/12/2023 BY THE SECRETARY OF R1 BEARING NO. SECY/03/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE K.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1300 WP No. 619 of 2024

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioner is an Assistant Revenue Officer with Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and he is nominated as a Public Information Officer. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission in the proceedings in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 [ Annexure-J ]. The State Chief Information Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 while directing the petitioner to furnish information as sought for by the second respondent, has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/holding that he is in default and he must deposit this penalty into the Government "Head of Account No.0070-60-118-0-01-000" within a period of one month.

¶29

This Court, on 22.01.2024, has granted interim order and as such the direction to pay

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:1300 WP No. 619 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

penalty stands suspended. The facts are mostly undisputed. The second respondent has sought for certain information relating to transfer of revenue entries relevant to the year 2010-11 and the petitioner, who was the Public Information Officer as of the date of the application viz ., 26.08.2022, has not furnished the information within the first thirty [30] days or the next forty five [45] days. This has constrained the second respondent to initiate the proceedings with the State Chief Information Commissioner. However, it is seen from the records that though the petitioner has firstly issued an endorsement to the second respondent stating that because the concerned has filed a response objecting to the application being favoured, he has ultimately furnished the information to the second respondent.

¶34

The petitioner in his defense contends that initially efforts were made to secure information from the office of the Sub-Registrar and within his own

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:1300 WP No. 619 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

office but the records were not located until 27.10.2023 and thereafter the information is furnished. The State Chief Information Commissioner has proceeded on the ground that the petitioner has failed to offer any explanation for the delay. Ms.Sumana Baliga M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, disputes this finding relying upon the copies of the communication dated 03.11.2023 and an Intimation to the second respondent of the even date asserting that the State Chief Information Commissioner was informed about the second respondent being furnished with the information by filing a copy of the communication dated 03.11.2023. The learned counsel argues that the State Chief Information Commissioner has not considered this communication and the Intimation.

¶39

There is some controversy on whether the

¶40

petitioner did file this copy of this communication on 03.11.2023 with both Mr. Sharath Gowda G. B., the

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:1300 WP No. 619 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.Suguna R. Reddy, the learned counsel for the second respondent, proposing to elaborate. However, this Court, because it is now brought out on record indisputably that the delay in furnishing the information was because the records could not be immediately located and that the information is furnished thereafter without lapse, the impugned order cannot be sustained. Therefore, the petition is allowed quashing the order dated 03.11.2023 in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 [ Annexure-J ].

¶45

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶46

SA ct:sr

P. Prasanna Kumar v. Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P. Prasanna Kumar 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 v Ravi Kumar Vs Karnataka State Bar Council

Sri.Devang S Patel Vs Registrar Cum Director

The Branch Manager Vs Mr. Emmanuel D Souza

Smt. Lakshmi Devi K M Vs the Manager

Sri Gautham Somani Vs Sri Shashi Kumar

M/S. Psg Construction Vs the State of Karnataka