IN me HIGH coum or RARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 13*" DAY OF ocTom=-:R 2010 BEFORE : me HON'Bi_E MRJUSTICE MOHAN sHANTANAGouft:);a;'rg--,t:"'. WRIT PETITIQN Ng.17§§[2Q1Q(§M-Rggi.) "' " Bgjgwggn : é H.N. Nagaraj S/0 H.K. Narasimhegowda Aged about 57 years Occ : Tahasildar & Public Information Officer Chinthamani Taluk Chinthamani * ' 'a_ . Chikkaballapur District. '- __.7~..PetEtioner (By Sr': Basavarai GA-}<C.Ioda3Chi%a '~ 1. Karnataka' Inforrria_tto.r1 "Cj§m4mission Rep by its Authorésved Representative M.S;.?-Buitiding, 3"? Stage, 3" Floor V. -Dr." "Arnb'ed kar Street' »l3engVa!u_m%-*5V6'@ Q01. 2. S«rhttr'SuVbb'ama31'a W/or fate N_ar.aAyanaswamy ~V Age"Maj'Qr,'Pa1epaEIE Village '-».Shettih.a_H'i Post Annbaajidturga Hobii _ACh}_nthamani Taluk Czhikkaballapur District. ..Resp0ndents S.B. Shahapur, AGA., for R1) -2- This Writ Petition is fifed under Articies 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash/set aside the order dated 3.11.2009 made in KIC 8524 COM .2008 passedb-;}f"jtifi"e, R1 herein as per Annexure-A being totaiiy':..ar4tji'trary§;.._._y'. erroneous and not sustainabie in law and~i«-dis.-'nis.s: .the_'" compiaint of the R2 herein. This Writ Petition coming Vonfor p'reii'minaryV'i' 'B' group this day, the Court made"s«tVhe foiEowi.n_g'-:..'.= " Q__.R D._E"R=," 1' Petitioner is the Tah'asi_i'da'rv--.of:' Taluk and consequentiy he is«a.,;P:t:bii£j_AIn,format'ioii_».Qfficer of Chintamani Taluk. TheHrespondentihioj.'2..:herei_n"'submitted an appiication
seeking of Darakastu appiication,
AvahaiuV.Takte,~~ _surv’eyi”v.sV|'<"étch, revenue sketch, viliage
._'j'rnahaz'ar'e:t<:.,«of paVrti'c'ut'ar property. Such an appiication
ciahifie' 28.2.2007. The petitioner's office did
mnot proyideV_t.h'e'1-inlformation for a long period of 14 months.
-ii_f.i’_j;.«i-_iowever, 11.5.2009, only a part of information was
iproyidled”A_«to respondent No.2 by the office of the petitioner.
. there was deiay of about 14 months. Hence, the State
1/>
Information Commissioner issued show cause notice to the
petitioner directing the petitioner to show cause as4.to»-lwhy
action should not be taken against him under
of Right to Information Act, 2oo5. The peti~tioti:e.r:’did-gnoyt”
reply to the said show _cause not._ice,-..,éfi’h”ii.s,..,thiefstatet
Information Commissioner rightly-..heid ‘that the i.pet,it.i:Qner_T§has
no explanation to offer to the Ultimately,
the impugned order as 111.2399 is
passed, directing the petviAt.i.onei’. of €25,000/~.
The jurisdictiorialv also directed to
initiate dgistipliynaiiig i,sgaiiiysti the petitioner in
accordance the Ka rnataka Civil services
(Classification, Colnt-ro’l*.an.d:”Appeal) Rules, 1957.
2,. This “Coiirt..does not find any error in the impugned
I-‘,’VV’oi*d¢r}’i~~«i”ni.-.”so”i’far asvitirelates to imposition of DenaltY is
as, the petitioner has failed to explain
befoireithe. Information Commissioner as to why the
.._lf’_j’j;-g.__information* sought for by respondent No.2 was not provided
l/3
-4-
within the specified period of 30 days. As aforementioned,
only part of the information was provided on 11.5.2009.
3. The case of the petitioner is that he has assumed
charge as Tahsiidar & Public Information Officer”-,Tof
Chintamani Taiuk on 13.11.2008 and immediateiy_.t.h4ere_a§ft~er”
the information was supplied to respondent-._:
11.5.2009. Since the earlier off?vcer'”was*«._ai:’
petitioner prays that he should not bev4pena._iised..g ». 1. ”
4. It is not in dispute that_V_t’n.e peti’tiorre_r’hVas~..assumed * 2′
office of7.__the«1;fa’hsilda.rb”Q-..i5fu~bE’ic Information Officer on
13.11.2008. filed application seeking
_inform»aftion,on Thus, it is clear that the earlier
Enforrr.lati_on Officer has not supplied the information
to”‘respoAn’d4ent__ illipv.-212 from 28.2.2007 till 13.11.2008. The
petitioner .–..cannot be blamed for the same. However the
:”‘v4.44’p.et:itionerVdid not make endeavor to supply full information to
4’_’_th’e._VVres’pondent No.2 within 30 days from the date of
if lilassufming his office. But, he lgas furnished part of the
4’!
V7
-5 _
information oniy on 11.5.2009 i.e., after the iapse of about
six months from the date of assuming office. Fuli information
as sought for by respondent No.2 is not provided.
regard to the totality of the facts and circumsta_nce’s’,” _
considered opinion, interest of justice; ,wii_i_ be me— if:’_th’e’~:oi”de::4 ”
passed by the 15′ respondent in sov’»_far;”as:’
direction issued to the Deputy”fiomiimissioneriiittuinitiate
disciplinary action againstthe pety_i_.t4_i:i’c’:,.;i:e.-,5? firhe rest:
of the impugned order gbe’coi’:fgivrr:no.d’, inasmuch as,
the petitioner is ‘aiso aipfauiit the fuii
information even after he
assuming’:VofficeiVin-«yifeyy”%f”th__e–afboye, the foilowing order is
made : A if V H
. . I
The ‘~impug’n.ed_ _____ __crder vide Annexure-‘A’ dated
__by the 1″ respondent in so far as it relates
to ‘.iss’u~i.n’gV”a’éVd_i:ectVi’on to the Deputy Commissioner to initiate
discipiina.ry.AVaction against the petitioner as per Karnataka
‘seryices (Classification, Control and Appeai) Ruies,
…1–9’5′:7′,i’stands quashed. Rest of the order passed by the
V/>
13’ respondent IS confirmed. The impugned order IS modified
to that extent oniy.
Writ petition disposed of accordingfy.
*bk/ nk