1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DATED THIS THE 23R» DAY OF OCTOBER zoffir 4% THE HOITBLE MR. JUSTICE I WRIT PETITION NO.35.24.9_ OF' 200:; Ti; BETWEEN: SHRI.A.NAGABHUSHANAM; S/0 Balappa, Aged about 55 Years, v . R/at No.47/5A, 17"? Cross, _ ' 14"? Main, Malleswaram, ' BANGALORE-560 ..PET1T1oNER. .M,/ SI ' Kufffiar 8: _ K1_iIflal'--,» Adv.) 1. THE ;i<A12NATA1<AVINFOO.RMAT10N COMMESSION,' . ' HI F1001", 'M1V:ltiVSt0r'veye61 ' Btjilding, Vid}:1_a1'1a Veedhi, - 001. fsiepresented by Chief " I;r1fOrf11a_1tiO:1_ ( j.0mm1'ssi0ner. 'eAsHR1.sR1:~n7vAs RDHONDALE. Aged V-._a§1b01*jt 55 Years. R/atvND.22, I Floor, 11 Cross, " AA Cholurpalya, Magadi Road. [ 'BANGALORE. .. RESPONDENTS.
(By Sri.R.B.Satyanarayan Singh,
O HCGP for R-1,
Respondent No.2 — Served) ,
*M*M*m*_sM*W*%*
license. To the said endorsement a reply was sei1–t”hy.yA42″d
respondent on 24.09.2008 stating that the 4_
he intend to start the business not j
assessed to tax, and was not entered theilgatha
Therefore B.B.M.P., is not the V l”doci,1inentls’.
Second respondent also otherwise the said
documents are not requiredl’tol’V’iief:’ along with the
application 2007.
3. After from B.B.M.P..
for considerahleil two applications under
Right to Information filed by the 2119” respondent
seeking; the stage. the application submitted by hini for
llgrant. To the said applications, he received a reply
on” the Public Information Officer, BBMP.
V Bpangalore;”–l:Spi:ati11g that only one Officer has dealt with the file
his application from the date of application till
–thelh”date, he sought information regarding ‘said application.
. V ” reply it was also indicated that the said file continues
‘W1
Office in Jagjivanramnagar. Even after such transfer, he has
not surrendered the file and continue to keep the.,V_fil_e
him. Therefore in the absence of relevant doctt-:nent,.i’phewas
compelled to issue the endorsement_da.ted which» ,4
is at Annexure — to this proceeding. *~
5. Thereafter the first respondent therein: ‘notice
to petitioner to his ..,V_office”” ‘eadclress. Admittedly the
petitioner is a Public ‘sent to a Public
Servant to their§of:’ice-adtiressfin«n’orInal::éourse cannot come
back und_eli\_rere(i–“.Vnriless,.»_f”the– intention of the Officer is
otherwise. 31; case, notice has come back
._unserve%d,l ieTherea;fter the first respondent left with no other
‘o_pti.on…_Vafter.pre:~las_certaining the address of petitioner, which
is the same ‘address, to which earlier notice was addressed.
sent colrraniunication to petitioner through the Medical Officer
Jagjivanramnagar, with a direction to serve the
__notice on the petitioner herein. It is seen that after
extreme step of getting notice served to him
through his Superior Officer, petitioner herein reluctantly
“\
appeared before first respondent on 06.11.2009’ and
shamelessly admitted that he is in possession of the file
pertaining to applications regarding grant of license-to”
respondent for running his restaura:1tt’busin’ess.4 V in
6. When the petitioner admittedly
Ward No.27 to Jagjivanranmag.a}«,Ward- of
November 2008, he had rio..V_1ous.in’ess:’tojt:a._n*yA the’fi’1ew1’th him
to his new office; therefis’ iiowexplanation for this
strange behaavio o1i7,peti.tiorier in this writ petition or
before theifirst’ said proceedings. When the
petitioner herein .,admitted.:_”..’about keeping the records with
anyiifalid__’reason and not taking any steps for
clearing.the’=app’iication fiied by respondent No.2 and also
V..vobstro.c’ting&ti;ie_V§’1a1blic Information Officer in giving relevant
“»..,_..§nfor1natiori'{r.oV second respondent under Right to Information
i.the-f_.first respondent rightly heid the delinquent official,
. the petitioner herein as deemed Information Officer under
Act. After hearing him the 18* respondent has rightly
‘°’\
imposed ma>d1num penalty of Rs.25,000/- and also._d-irected
the B.B.M.P., to hold an enquiry in this ‘behalf. it
7. The said order is impugned ‘
proceeding on the ground that he is nottize ,
Information Officer under 5 pthe.’:’;Right to
Information Act, 2005. theflvorder, the
first respondent didnot give to him to
decide the petitioner for alleged
obstruction under the Right to
Inforinatioii Act. is” contention that whatever the
information by the Health Officer,
on d5;05_,_2.009, could have been issued by him
ufi-.thin’the Because of the delay caused by the
:””vr.._w_Healtl1 he cannot be saddled with the
penalty of Rs.25,000/–.
I
the counsel for petitioner and the learned
it {}ov’ernment Pieader appearing on behalf of first respondent.
“*1
9. On perusal of the records which .byr_:the>
first respondent with reference to the
first respondent under Rights’to__ Infor;[I’iatior;V’_p~Vit
discloses that the petitioner consideration not
only withheld the app1ica’tion respondent, has
also taken steps tocsee would not
be left with approach him for his
Work, even. afte1*.the;lV’fi§{as :from the said place. His
conduct the 271-11 Division with him
even after ” Jagjivanramnagar oifice clearly
~tn_dicavte’s VVp1nte’:eeion.,.V It is further seen that when the
second brought to his notice under Suvarna
‘ Arog’3za”Parav2Lnige, 2007, such documents were not required
be produced, petitioner had no business to retain that fiie
he ought to have disposed of the same or in the
h —..al’teri1ative while he was giving charge to the new officer,
t»»..si1ouid have handed over that file to the Health Inspector,
W
‘3 0
Information Officer/General Manager~in–cha:rge,
District and others Vs. The Tamil Nada-..’::” 4_
Commission 81 Others state that no su’fflc.ient op.pjort_unity was i j A’
given to him to substantiate his stand_:before–,yA.th,e2
penalty was imposed on him he the
Public Information Officeri’ questio’n imposing
penalty on him is contrary law and that
the first respondentp:y1’11asA__ the principles as
secondaiy ‘Wednesbury principles.
On perusVai”V¢f* it is seen that the
context “finding was given by the said
Court is; totai1y4’Vdiiifei’ent.’fro.n1 the facts and circumstances on
aforesaidjudgment, before imposing penalty.
petition_ers’~v :w.e_reV]vri’ot heard, whereas in the instant case,
V ‘Vthough”—sufiicient opportunity was given at earlier stage. it is
petitioner who deliberately avoided to appear before the
f1i7StiR[spondent and finally when the notice was issued to
T “h:in”1″through his Superior Officer, he has appeared before the
i’irst respondent and has admitted in unequivocal terms that
“‘*”‘i
11
the application dated 28.08.2008 continue to bet-“in his
custody even on the date when he appeared
respondent on 06.11.2009.
12. Admittedly by that time he was if V
the office to which the said application. beiongs ther§”‘m\rasp
no explanation available with for retaining the said file
even beyond the period “one.’VAye:aVr” transfer from the
place to which the said and also his
conduct in not t’ne”aut-hiority on earlier two
occasions when noticjefifaisl’ issued to him and not handing the
entire file tovfthe inforrnation Officer, when the said
I
I..~()fficer_fss91}?glit._the “fi’i€.___fQr giving reply to the appiication filed
by, ti1e”second resp.ondent, clearly discloses his intention is to
‘ V’ =.._;._harassg’tb.e secoj_n.d respondent for obvious reasons. Therefore
.the_ first respondent after giving sufficient opportunity to the
«petitioner herein and considering all the submissions made
H personally before the 18′ respondent has rightly
iniposed maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/~ to the petitioner.
I
‘Wt
today. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this*’ to
Commissioner, B.B.M.P., to enter this in the
of the petitioner.
AGV.