- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:2443 WP No. 10385 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10385 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: S C NANDIMATH LAW COLLEGE THE PRINCIPAL, S. C. NANDIMATH LAW COLLEGE, BVV SANGHA CAMPUS, BAGALKOT-587 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.B.S.VENKATANARAYANA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI S G HATTARKI ADVOCATE, NGO COMPLEX, NEAR COURT, INDI, INDI TALUK, VIJAYAPUR-586 221. 2. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DC OFFICE COMPLEX, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT-587 103. 3. S. C. NANDIMATH LAW COLLEGE, ALUMNI ASSOCIATION, A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA ASSOCIATION REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 AND HAVING ITS OFFICE AT BVV SANGHA CAMPUS, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:2443 WP No. 10385 of 2020 BAGALKOT-587 101, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION M.S. BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD STAGE, NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MANJUNATHA RAYAPPA., AGA FOR R2; SMT.VIDYA GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SHARATH GOWDA.G.B., ADVOCATE FOR R4; R1 AND 3 - SERVED AND UNREPRSENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.B.S.Venkatanarayana., counsel on behalf of Sri.Madhukar M.Deshpande., for the petitioner, Sri.Manjunatha Rayappa., AGA for respondent No.2 and Smt.Vidya Gowda., counsel on behalf of Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., for respondent No.4 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the Appeal in Case No.KIC 12771 APL - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:2443 WP No. 10385 of 2020 2018 pending before the respondent No.4 vide Annexure-G and proceedings in Case No.KIC 12771 APL 2018 before the Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore vide Annexures- A1 to A10. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. It is noted that the first respondent had sought certain information. His grievance is that the same has not been furnished by the petitioner. Hence, he was compelled to file an appeal before the second respondent. It is pivotal to note that the appeal is yet to be considered. However, the first respondent filed a second appeal before the fourth respondent. It is not in dispute that the appeal is yet to be considered by the second respondent. Hence, the first respondent could not have preferred a second appeal before the fourth respondent. Therefore, this Court deems it proper to quash the proceedings that are initiated by the first respondent before the fourth respondent. In the result, the proceedings before the fourth - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:2443 WP No. 10385 of 2020 respondent is quashed. However, a direction is issued to the second respondent to dispose of the first appeal at the earliest. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 33