- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI WRIT PETITION NO. 24530 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: VENKATESH SAGAR S/O LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC) S-19 SUB-DIVISION, VIJAYA BANK LAYOUT, BESCOM, BANGALORE-560 076. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. M L SUVARNA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PUTTE GOWDA K.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, M.S.BUILDING, DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI. MALLIKARJUNA RAJU K MAJOR BY AGE, 56 YEARS, FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, KARNATAKA KARMIKA KALYANA PRATHISHTANA, NO.859, 1ST FLOOR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, YESHWANTHPURA, BANGALORE-560 022. 3. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELE) JAYANAGAR DIVISION, BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LTD, BANGALORE-560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 V.C.O DATED 13.12.2022; SRI. H V DEVARAJU., ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2022 AND QUASH ORDER IN CASE NO. KMAAA/12450/APL/2022 DATED 29.09.2022 (UNDER ANNX-L TO THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI ORAL ORDER The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer: “(a) QUASH Order in Case No. KMaAA/12450/APL/2022 dated 29- 09-2022 (under Annexure-L to the writ petition) issued by the 1st respondent by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and grant all consequential benefits. (b) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition.” 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2 herein filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information in respect of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 approvals made and powers sanctioned to “Sonin Developers, LLP Projects”, 22nd main, BBMP, Ward No. 187, J.P Nagar 5th phase, Bangalore along with all the supported documents. The application though dated 30.11.2021, but it is submitted only on 17.12.2021. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioner is not in a position to provide the information and requested the respondent No.2 to provide revenue register number and if the second respondent is not satisfied with the complaint, he can appeal to the third respondent by communication dated 14.01.2022. Then the second respondent has appealed before the third respondent on 11.02.2022 stating that the reply by the petitioner is misguided and information is not provided. The third respondent, by communication dated 18.02.2022, requested the second respondent to visit the office on 04.03.2022 at 03.30 p.m. for looking into the matter. Thereafter, the third respondent by proceedings dated 04.03.2022, communicated that the petitioner shall provide the information as sought for by the petitioner dated 14.01.2022. The petitioner, in furtherance of the communication dated 28.04.2022 to the respondent No.3, transferred the application of respondent No.2 for approval of the file in the name of one - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 Sri. Ravikumar and others (Sonin Developers) and for providing information. Subsequent to the approval of respondent No.3, the petitioner by communication dated 10.05.2022 provided the entire set of documents pertaining to the information sought. The second respondent however, approached the Appellant Authority under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 complaining about the information not having been provided by the petitioner. A notice was issued on 21.07.2022, summoning the petitioner to appear before him on 16.08.2022 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner appeared and submitted that there is no dereliction of duty. But it is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering the explanation provided by the petitioner, the first respondent herein by its order dated 16.08.2022 imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner on the ground that information provided by the petitioner was not in time. Later the penalty amount is reduced to Rs.10,000/- by order dated 29.09.2022. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that though the application is dated 30.11.2021, but the same was given to the petitioner on 18.12.2021 and immediately on - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 14.01.2022 the petitioner has sought for the RR number because without that, information cannot be given. Learned counsel submits that without giving the said information he has preferred an appeal and finally the information sought was given. However, on the ground of delay now the cost is imposed by the first respondent. Without even considering this fact and considering the date that is mentioned in the petition, the first respondent has imposed the cost. It is submitted that the said order of the first respondent is contrary to the facts on record and the order needs to be set aside. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent submits that the first respondent considering the fact that there is delay in giving the information and considering the fact that the application is filed in the month of November,2021 but finally the information was given in the month of May,2022 and as per the Act, the information is supposed to be given within 30 days hence first respondent has imposed a costs of Rs.10,000/- and there is no illegality with the said order. 5. Having heard the counsel on either side, perused the order passed by the first respondent. In the order, it is categorically mentioned that the applicant had filed an - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 application seeking information on 17.12.2021 and as per the rules, the information should have been provided within 30 days, but the information was provided to the applicant after 120 days. Considering the point seriously and by considering that respondent has deliberately delayed in providing the information to the appellant, in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the first respondent has imposed a penalty of Rs.10,000/-. A bare perusal of the impugned order shows that the applicant has sought for information and without furnishing the said information an appeal is filed and also without considering the fact that the application is dated 17.12.2021 has imposed fine on the petitioner. 6. In the considered opinion of the Court, the order impugned is passed without appreciating the facts of the case. Considering the submission of the petitioner as well as the facts on record, when the petitioner has asked the applicant for the details and as he failed to furnish the same and the first communication that is given by the petitioner is within 30 days from the date of application, on all these grounds the order impugned cannot be sustained. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22738 WP No. 24530 of 2022 7. In the light of the above discussion, this Court is passing the following: ORDER i. Accordingly, the order dated 29.09.2022 passed in case No.KMAAA/12450/APL/2022 by the 1st respondent is set aside. ii. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. iii. Pending I.As, in the petition shall stand closed. SD/- (LALITHA KANNEGANTI) JUDGE TS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22