Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 50129 OF 2015 (GM-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 16716 OF 2016 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 16717 OF 2016 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 16718 OF 2016 (GM-RES) WRIT PETITION NO. 16719 OF 2016 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 50129/2015 BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJ AGE 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURAL OFFICER, AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. SRI. OM HEGDE URATHOTA NO.439, 4TH MAIN, NAGENDARA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BANGALORE-560050. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
SRI. M.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT DATED 29.04.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-J AND ETC. IN WP NO. 16716/2016: BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJA S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI OM HEGDE URATHOTA RESIDING AT NO.439, 4TH MAIN, NAGENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. M.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KA MA AA, 498 APL 2014 DATED 13.04.2015 AND 28.08.2015 AT ANNEXURE-G AND J.
IN WP NO. 16717/2016: BETWEEN: SRI.
NAGARAJA S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI OM HEGDE URATHOTA MAJOR, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT NO.439, 4TH MAIN, NAGENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SMT. SOHANI HOLLA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
- 4 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KA MA AA 499 APPEAL 2014 DATED 13.04.2015 AND 28.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND J BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. IN WP NO. 16718/2016: BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJA S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI OM HEGDE URATHOTA RESIDING AT NO.439, 4TH MAIN, NAGENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI.
M.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
- 5 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KA MA AA 500 APPEAL 2014 DATED 13.04.2015 AND 28.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND J BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. IN WP NO. 16719/2016 BETWEEN:
SRI. NAGARAJA S/O KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, AGRICULTURE OFFICER, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT, MADADAKERE HOBLI, HOSADURGA TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 527. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA MURTHY C., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, GATE NO.2, 3RD FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI OM HEGDE URATHOTA MAJOR, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT NO.439, 4TH MAIN, NAGENDRA BLOCK, SRINAGARA, BENGALURU - 560 050. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. M.N.BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
- 6 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEARING NO.KA MA AA 572 APPEAL 2014 DATED 13.04.2015 AND 28.08.2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND J BY ISSUING A WRIT OF CERTIORARI. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
ORAL ORDER
W.P.No.50129/2015 is filed challenging an order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 10935 ¦nJ£ï 2013 dated 29.04.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.
2. W.P.No.16716/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 498 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 13.04.2015 and the
order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 498 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.
3. W.P.No.16717/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 499 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 13.04.2015 and the
order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 499 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.
- 7 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
4. W.P.No.16718/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 500 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 13.04.2015 and the
order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 500 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1.
5. W.P.No.16719/2016 is filed challenging the order bearing No. PÀªÀiÁD 572 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 13.04.2015 and the
order bearing No.PÀªÀiÁD 572 J¦J¯ï 2014 dated 28.08.2015 passed by the respondent No.1. 6. (i) In all these petitions, the petitioner was designated as a Public Information Officer in the Department of Agriculture, Uttara Kannada District. The respondent No.2 in all these petitions submitted applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'R.T.I. Act') seeking information about Integrated Barren Land Scheme in Mynalli village, Ajjihalli village, Salagao village and Bappanagundi village. The applications were filed on 11.05.2013 and 06.06.2013. The petitioner being the Public Information Officer replied on 10.06.2013 calling upon the respondent No.2 to inspect the documents that were needed. - 8 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
Since the petitioner did not furnish the information, respondent No.2 filed first appeals before the Assistant Director of Agriculture under Section 19(1) of the R.T.I. Act. The First Appellate authority did not consider the appeals in time. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was transferred as the Agricultural Officer, Chitradurga District in terms of Government Order dated 09.10.2013. Since the respondent No.2 was not provided with the information sought for and his first appeals were not considered, he filed second appeals under Section 19(3) of the R.T.I. Act. The respondent No.1 issued a notice to the incumbent Public Information Officer at Uttara Kannada District. (ii) The petitioner claims that no notice was served to him and therefore, he did not appear before the Commissioner. However, a show-cause notice was issued to him as to why the penalty should not be imposed for not supplying information. The respondent No.1 also passed an order directing the incumbent Public Information Officer to furnish the information sought for by the respondent No.2. - 9 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
(iii) The petitioner claims that in order to ensure that the documents are furnished to respondent No.2, he wrote letters to the incumbent Public Information Officer requesting him to furnish information to the respondent No.2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the show-cause notice and requested the respondent No.1 to drop penalty proceedings against him.
The respondent No.1 took a view that there were malafides on the part of the petitioner in not furnishing the information and therefore, imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in respective cases. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the respondent No.2 had filed applications seeking information on 11.05.2013 and 06.06.2013. The petitioner had replied to him on 10.06.2013 to visit the office and inspect the documents that were needed. He contends that respondent No.2 instead of visiting the office and identifying the documents that were needed, filed first appeals before the First Appellate Authority and thereafter, approached the respondent No.1. He
- 10 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
contends that the respondent No.2 had sought for voluminous documents and therefore, it was for him to inspect and identify the documents that were needed and also pay requisite fee to make photocopies of the same. He submits that the petitioner was diligent in disposing off the request of respondent No.2 and that it was respondent No.2, who was more interested in penalizing the petitioner than obtaining information. He therefore, contends that the impugned orders imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in respective cases, be set aside and appropriate orders be passed. 8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner was entitled to the information sought for as a matter of right. He submits that the petitioner, who was the Public Information Officer was bound to furnish the documents within 30 days as provided under Section 7 of the R.T.I. Act. He contends that the petitioner did not furnish the documents even after first and second appeals were filed.
He therefore, contends that the petitioner was deliberately complacent and was trying to avoid furnishing the information
- 11 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
sought for. He therefore, contends that the respondent No.1 was right in imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in respective cases. 9. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 also submitted that the purpose of the Right to Information Act is to ensure that the information sought for, is provided at the earliest. He contends that an elaborate provision is made under Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act to catalogue and index the documents so that whenever an application is filed seeking information, Public Information Officer can furnish it without much delay. He submits that it is in this spirit that the respondent No.1 had hauled up the petitioner by imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in respective cases. He submits that if the issue is not dealt with an iron hand, the purpose of enactment would be lost and hence, prays that this petition be dismissed. 10. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the
- 12 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
respondent No.2. I have also perused the orders in these petitions. 11. The Right to information Act, 2005, was enacted with citizen centric approach which placed the Government and the citizens on a level playing field. The Act was enacted in view of the declaration of law that right to information is a part of the fundamental right guaranteed to the citizens.
Therefore, the Act devised a cutting edge method to ensure compliance by mandating in Section 4, the ground work that every office of the Government should comply so as to give effect to the provisions of the R.T.I. Act. If we look at Section 4 of the R.T.I. Act, it mandates that all records and documents in a public office should be catalogued and indexed within 120 days. This is to ensure that the provisions contained in Section 7 of the R.T.I. Act are complied with without any delay. 12. The respondent No.2 sought for information, which related to the period 2010-11. The information related to the implementation of a scheme by the Government in some villages. The petitioner who was the Public Information Officer, was bound to furnish the information sought for within 30 days. - 13 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
Instead he addressed a letter on the 30th day to the respondent No.2 calling upon him to visit his office to inspect and identify the documents needed and stated that same would be furnished after cost of making photocopies was deposited. The petitioner could have very well done this soon after receiving the applications filed by the respondent No.2. Section 7 of the R.T.I. Act mandates that the information sought for is granted within 30 days, failing which, an appeal is provided before the First Appellate authority and a second appeal is provided. Therefore, every public authority is bound to furnish the documents within 30 days or reject the applications filed justifying the reasons for refusing to furnish the documents. In any case, the petitioner cannot avoid furnishing the documents in any way including the way in which the petitioner in the present case has done. If furnishing information is not prohibited under any of the clauses of the R.T.I. Act, the Public Information Officer is bound to furnish the same.
The respondent No.2 has claimed that the petitioner did not furnish the documents till he was transferred from Mundagoda, Uttara Kannda District to Chitradurga District on 09.10.2013. This therefore, speaks volumes of the attitude of the petitioner
- 14 -
HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:30101 WP No. 50129 of 2015 C/W WP No. 16716 of 2016 WP No. 16717 of 2016 AND 2 OTHERS
towards citizens whom he has to serve. The respondent No.1 therefore, has rightly held that the petitioner had unjustifiably denied furnishing the information/documents sought for by the respondent No.2 and had rightly imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/-, Rs.10,000/- and Rs.10,000/- in respective cases. There is no error in the respondent No.2 doing so and hence, the petitions deserve to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, these petitions are dismissed. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE
PMR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30