- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34945 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S. SOMASHEKARA S/O. SANNASWAMY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER (ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE) BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO.307, 9TH MAIN, CANARA BANK COLONY, NAGARABHAVI ROAD, BANGALORE-560 072 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION (CH-2) 2ND FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA, OPPOSITE TO WEST GATE-2 TO VIDHANASOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER 2. SRI. B.H. VEERESH AGED ABOUT MAJOR, NO.54, 17TH CROSS, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BANGALORE-560 040 3. THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO STATE OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 4. THE COMMISSIONER BRUHATH BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N.R.SQUARE, BANGALORE-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.3; SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SMT. SUMANGALA GACHCHINAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4; RESPONDENT NO.2-B.H.VEERESH (PARTY-IN-PERSON) - SERVED AS PER POSTAL TRACK REPORT (ABSENT)) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS PERTAINS TO COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 BEARING NO.KAMAAAA 458 COM 2015 DATED 19.07.2018 ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.07.2018 BEARING NO.KAMAAAA 458 COM 2015 AS PER ANNEXURE-A PASSED UNDER SECTION 20(2) OF RTI ACT, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST PETITIONER AS ILLEGAL AND IN EXCESS TO THE POWERS PROVIDED UNDER PROVISIONS OF RTI ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order bearing No.KaMaaAa 458 COM 2015 dated 19.07.2018 passed by the respondent No.1 under Section 20(2) of the Right to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act, 2005' for short). 2. The petitioner was working as Chief Engineer (Road & Infrastructure) of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru. The respondent No.2 filed an application seeking information from the office of (Road & Infrastructure) of Bruhath Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru (BBMP) on 27.10.2014. The petitioner forwarded the application to the Executive Engineer and Public Information officer on 28.10.2014. Since information sought for by the respondent No.2 was not furnished, he filed a First Appeal under Section 19 of RTI Act, 2005. However, he did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the first appellate authority closed the appeal filed by the respondent No.2. He thereafter filed a second appeal before the respondent No.1. In the meanwhile, the Public Information Officer in terms of a letter dated 14.12.2016 furnished information that was sought for by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 in the meanwhile had approached the Second Appellate Authority namely, the respondent No.1 herein under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 2005. The respondent No.1 after considering the objections filed by the petitioner to the appeal memorandum, passed the impugned order directing disciplinary action against the petitioner. The petitioner is therefore, before this Court challenging the said order. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the publication information officer in the department of Road and Infrastructure, BBMP is the office of Executive Engineer and not the Chief Engineer. He submits that the respondent No.1 without considering this fact, had passed the impugned order directing disciplinary action against the petitioner. Even otherwise, he contends that the respondent No.2 was satisfied with the information furnished by the public information officer and therefore, he perhaps did not appear before the first appellate authority. He contends that at any rate, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 directing disciplinary action against the petitioner was not warranted. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 contends that the claim of the petitioner that he was not the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 public information officer was not raised before the respondent No.1. Therefore, he contends that the respondent No.1 passed the impugned order on the premise that the petitioner was the public information officer and that he had failed to furnish the information sought for within the time prescribed. 5. This is however, countered by the learned counsel for the petitioner who contends that the respondent No.1 was informed that petitioner was not the public information officer as per the letter dated 13.04.2018 addressed to the respondent No.1 by the respondent No.4. 6. The respondent No.2 is absent and therefore, this Court did not have the benefit of his submissions. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner has placed on record, a notification dated 07.08.2017 issued by the respondent No.4 appointing public information officers under the RTI Act, 2005. As per this notification, the public information officer in the Road and Infrastructure division is the office of the Executive Engineer, BBMP, Central office and the appellate authority is the Superintendent Engineer. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 8. In that view of the matter, the petitioner who was then the Chief Engineer was under no obligation to furnish the information. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 directing disciplinary action against the petitioner who was then the Chief Engineer in the respondent No.4 was without application of mind. This apart, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent No.4 in its communication dated 13.04.2018 addressed to the respondent No.1 had informed the respondent No.1 that it was not the petitioner who was the publication information officer but it was the office of the Executive Engineer. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.1 in so far as it relates to directing the respondent No.4 to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner warrants interference. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off. The portion of the impugned order dated 19.07.2018 which directs the respondent No.4 to conduct disciplinary action against the petitioner for not furnishing the information to the respondent No.2 is set aside. It is however, open for the respondent No.1 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31401 WP No. 34945 of 2018 to take necessary action against the concerned public information officer in accordance with law. 10. It is needless to mention that before taking such action, the respondent No.1 shall implead the public information officer, if not already impleaded and proceed in accordance with law. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23