IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE
IDATED 'i'}~i1S"I'I:~iE 2ND DAY 0;' APRIL 200.9 j
PRESENT
THE I~ION'BLE MR. P.D. BINAl{ARAN, c}%::1§:§*1V;31js'~T1g£«3_V ' '
AND
THE HONBLE MR.J{}Sj'}C,E V.i<:},M
WRIT APPEAL NQ.978 'GM -9 Pouch
BETWEEN: " " M V' "
Sri VShashidha'::f," 1 - _ -
S/o.Venugopa3=_." _
Aged about y.¢£:z'.s';_V " Q V" ' '
R/a.No;vVfi"é2;
Layout, %
Baz:1galor1»./;~A0f'_4lI;{a"I}' =.:gf;3l§al./_jl%1ighl l u
Court Act, 1962, praying to set'.'=__asjd.ef1 the' ..(5rde.:Wcia:eci
9.3.2009 passed in W.P.N0.5627/ 2009 dismiesing "<.vi*;'it
petition by the learned Single'J1__1.clge 201' this
This WRA coming up for before
Court this day, SABHAHIT J.,eldeIiv§?red._f11e following:
This petifionez' in
WP. by the order dated
9.3.20{)9A;"w§::ereil*1lVtl*le l1c:.«.§n'«.4,c1 Single Judge has declined
to q:'.1,;;*;sTl1e..tl1eV englofseiéxent issued by the 2M respondent .
ldamgi 1e§;}2§29es. “”” ll
‘~\&?;v.??.»f=£e«ll.€;ef27/2009 was fiieé by the appellant
axferrixig petitioner] appellant herein was werldng
‘as a Fo§iee Eionsiabie and he served the police department
l ” from $9’??? to 3991 and during that perim, he
‘ ” llhalzfitl taken an initiative to organize police personnel and
ifkkhila Karnataka Police Mahasangha was established
\EW,9x
during 1986-87 and this was not iiked by the higher
officers. The petitioner/ appellant herein was Vré I1:§ojsred
from service and he wanted to contest the _
well as pariialnentary elections by jg)iz1i11g.”
of his choice and that he sought’ Ibif” C€T:r¥ié:ij”1’A.ii”:fO’I4::nfi.fi&j£1
under the Right: to InforI11éii;ic–x} Acx:t-,v. ,pr’-2:’
request, the infoI’r1;at.ion fu:.x9i’1is1:1¢df 5 The
petitioner/appeflant hérfiin -answers to the
foliowing four qu._¢s1;i0I3.$’i” * :1 V
“1, …. ._’i_’he_”féLt3;1i1y*–»._”::1em’ct2::s.»’state police who
thcmseiwas fiat gcévcrnment servant, if wants
béeome ‘Pz’ajaI’ajyam er Congess
?ar’1:}aj ?53{:0IE1€S- ..ii1e7g:-.;1L'<
_ Tiie-.Vp9:nip1;;3.e£:of Prajarajyam or Congess
pan ii)t3.c1is&,z'ib1}.ted in non prohibited araa
" A _ liké :'pQlisi;e quarters.
3. Elm the family members of police
A “becoI’):’3€j; éctive members or office bearers of
“”‘—p0E.i;ticai° pariiies Wifl that eflhct on the post of
pralicfi stafi” (W111 they lose their post)’
4. The family memmrs of the state police
‘entirely if join. Prajarajyam er COI{1§’€SS Party
enbiock, Whether state election cemmisfion hats
got any objection.”
K2
The foiiowing answer was given to the above questions
under the Right to II1fOI’I}.’1ati(}I1 Ac:t, 2005:
“As per the 1’u1¢:’:s 5(3) to (4) of Kaxnataka;*’6ix;j1 5
Services (Conduct) Ruies, 19665 ”
Gcvemment servant or his/her» ..ffaJ_niiy . V
members can participats’ “321 L”
activities.”
Beirig aggrieved by the said.’i1:fQ1ms;tid1% v
the Right to informatién, _V Act,” i_ 5, the
I petitianerj appellant hé1*si:£3_ fii.¢d%.:_»’iP};’.”P,Vi%E§§L’5,627/ 2009 ts the
effect that the en-dQ_rseme11t 533%’ respondent is
not correct anti .1zia¥3icj ‘iééiitsguashed.
3. ‘1’h§;3. 2 ducige by his order dated
9.3.2099 LA hsid :iI1fD}’I}1ati{)I1 sought far by the
petitic€izéf;’af;p¢Ha:it”}iéreiI} was fumished as per the Right
its 2005 and the petitiorxer/appeilant
it _ hersin is.__vi3ot.7cs11fem’ed with any right to chaiienge the said
it and the same amounts to abuse of the
s._«;’3r;<$Visio11 of Right to Infsrmation Act, 2605 and
it acéordirigly, the writ petition has beer: dismissed. Being
' it aggieved by the order éaited 9.3.2009 dismissing the writ
w
=2:
petition, this writ appea} is filed by the petitioner. The
learned eozmse} appearing for the appeilant reitere£ed.tI1e
arguments submiited befere the iearned _
further Submitted that the writ petition to ..
allowed.
4. On the other hand, learfied
argued in suppert of “tle oz’d’er’Vr.:’§e’e$d learned
Single Judge.
contentions ‘urégerii-“‘*}.eerned emmsel appearing for
the partieSV”erié_sei’utLme§°; the materia} on record.
. V. ~5’r<V3'x"1;1'1i1"i3*;xef«VmateI'ia1 on record weuid eleariy
'Vehesézfi irpetitiorier/appeilant herein sought for
_answersgteiethe four questions under the Right to
H H frxfexieiefiee Act from the Director General and Inspector
of Pelice. The endorsement has been issued and
VT " tile Director General and mspecior General of Police has
' A. furnished answer 'me the said questions stating that as per
W'
Rules 5[i) to (4) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct)
Rules, 1966, no government servant er i"1iS/h§3I'L"f£§i1'flily
members can participate in political i "
basis of answer gven by the .[)i_1_'eetc_af
inspector General of Police, the wzzfit ifpetitiorz 'v.?s.s an
the gonad that the enclorseteent is V not i'eo:*:jeet,. The-'
petitioner/appellam herein es.x1.rioi?.. ¥:1eLAag,gI'ieved_.;3erso1} as
no action whatsoever has "er: the basis of
information the information
sought 'i'('}1"* i"-}oetiitioiiez'/Vleappeflant herein, the
Hflorniafioii has' ftiiittished as per the Right to
I11f'€)I'IIv}_8§I,i01';1i4')5.CV1i', aggieved by the irlformation
V' '-f12rni.si1e§i.A by the '2fi'~""~' respondent, the writ petition was
"1 Judge has rightly held that the Act
has apolieaiiorz te a case where a party wants te put
questidi1.s'3~and get answers ané even if some answers are
T."g¥,ve.n_:'.–'u31der a misceiiception that the Authorities are
te give answers to the questions put by an
"VVappiiea1"fl; and this itself would not confer any right; on the
petitioner] appellant herein and it shall amount to abuse
of the provisions of the Righ{ to Information
Leanied Single Judge has rightly dismiss_63:€1"'
petition. Having regard to the above saisé 9&1'
record, the order passed by tI1e:'»1ea1ffieéi
justified ané does not sufi"er"f_'1"o.m atiy é5:1ro1'T'{§fAVVi§}egaiity as; L'
to call for mtexferexgge appeal.
Accordingly, We hold -is’ deveid sf merit
arid pass me ._ h . . _.
The
$d/-
Chief Justice
3» sdl”
Judge
V’ l;;:§dex::’A.’?f%/ No