- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL WRIT APPEAL NO.717/2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: DR. C. RAMESH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS S/O LATE SRI CHALUVARAYA SWAMY R/AT 89, 3RD MAIN, FIRST CROSS SARVABHOUMANAGARA CHIKKAKALASANDRA BENGALURU - 560061. …APPELLANT (BY SRI. KIRAN B.S. & SRI. ATUL VINAYAK MANOJ, ADVS., &) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION COURT HALL - 3, GATE NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, MULTI STOREYED BUILDING DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560001. 3. DIRECTOR AND PRINCIPAL KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD BENGLAURU - 560029. 4. B.T. CHAMARAJAN CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER Digitally signed by RUPA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD BENGLAURU - 560029. 5. SHAGUFTA ANJUM ADMINISTRATOR AND PIO KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY DR. M.H. MARIGOWDA ROAD BENGALURU - 560029. 6. DR. PRITHVI S. BALEPUR NO.1/7, SAPTHAGIRI SUMA MOUNT ROAD, 1ST BLOCK JAYANAGAR (EAST) BEHIND MADHAVAN PARK BENGALURU - 560011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRAMODHINI KISHAN, AGA FOR R1 SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADV., FOR R2 SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADV., FOR R4 & R5 SRI. S. RAJASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R6 R3 SERVED) - - - THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL HEREIN AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2023 OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. 1669 OF 2016 AND GRANT RELIEF AS SOUGHT IN THE WRIT PETITION BY ALLOWING THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 15.10.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT, THIS DAY VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 CAV JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) This appeal is filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, challenging the order dated 17.04.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.1669/2016. 2. Sri.Atul Vinayak Manoj, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in coming to the conclusion that non- compliance of the communication dated 17.04.2013 is a lapse of the appellant and reduced the penalty from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.10,000/-. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge as well as the Karnataka Information Commission failed to appreciate that the appellant was not the Public Information Officer (PIO) under the law who is required to furnish the information sought by the respondent No.6 and hence, the imposition of any penalty on the appellant would not arise. It is further submitted that the transfer of application to the appellant by the respondent No.5 would also not arise as the appellant was not the PIO. Hence, he seeks to allow the appeal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 3. Per contra, Sri.G.B,Sharath Gowda, learned counsel for the respondent No.2, Smt.Pramodini Kishan, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1, Sri.S.Rajashekar, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Sri.Lakshmikanth K., learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4 and 5 support the order of the learned Single Judge and submit in chorus that the learned Single Judge has recorded a clear finding that the appellant has failed to reply to the communication dated 17.04.2013 which amounts to withholding of information and considering the same, the respondent No.2-Commission imposed penalty which has been partly modified by the learned Single Judge. The same does not call for any interference. Hence, they seek to dismiss the appeal. 4. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent No.1, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2, 4, 5 and 6 and perused the material - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 available on record. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made on both sides. 5. The records indicate that the respondent No.6 filed an application under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the RTI Act') on 15.03.2013 seeking certain information. Admittedly, the said application was submitted to the respondent No.5. The respondent No.5 sent a communication to the appellant requesting to furnish the information sought by the respondent No.6. The appellant sent a reply to the said communication on 27.03.2013 clarifying that there was no information or document available on record relating to the queries sought in the RTI application of the respondent No.6. Immediately thereafter, the respondent No.5 sent a communication dated 17.04.2013 to the appellant stating that the information sought is pertaining to the Department of the appellant and the application was transferred to the appellant under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and as per the circular, the appellant was the principal officer for the matter relating to academic cell and - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 hence, the appellant was requested to furnish the information to the applicant directly. 6. The records further indicate that the respondent No.5 sent a communication dated 18.04.2013 to the respondent No.6-applicant informing that his application is transferred to the appellant who is the PIO and also furnished the appellant's name and phone number and directed the applicant to contact him. The respondent No.5 approached the First Appellate Authority for non-furnishing of the information by the appellant and the First Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal recording that the information sought is furnished and some information sought is of personal nature and cannot be provided. Being aggrieved, the respondent No.6-applicant filed an appeal. The respondent No.2-Commission recorded a finding that the appellant has withheld the information intentionally and imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- which has been modified by the learned Single Judge by reducing the penalty to Rs.10,000/-. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 7. It is to be noticed that the respondent No.5, in the communication dated 17.04.2013 has clearly directed the appellant to furnish the information sought by the respondent No.6 specifically stating that the information sought was pertaining to the department of the appellant and further the communication dated 18.04.2013 also indicates that the appellant being the PIO, the application is transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and the said communication was never challenged by the appellant and now the contention that he is not the PIO or the authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act, has no merit. Admittedly, the appellant has not replied to the communication dated 17.04.2013 which amounts to intentional withholding of information as observed by the respondent No.2 and the said finding of the Commission is on appreciation of the contentions now advanced by the appellant which has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge. The issue is relating to imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- on the appellant. We do not propose to record a finding as to whether the appellant was a PIO or an authority under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act and whether he was responsible to furnish the information sought or not. The finding of the Commission as - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41758-DB W.A. No.717/2023 well as the learned Single Judge with regard to the non- compliance of the communication dated 17.04.2013 is affirmed. It is made clear that the order of penalty cannot be used against the appellant while assessing his services. Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of without interfering with the order of penalty. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE RV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1