- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15920 WP No. 8661 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 8661 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND UNDER SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, JUNGLE LODGES AND RESORT LIMITED, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, ROOM NO.15, GROUND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, JUNGLE LODGES AND RESORT LIMITED, DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM, ROOM NO.13, GROUND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT.NAVYA SHEKAR, AGA) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, ROOM NO.104, 1ST FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA, D. DEVARAJ ARASU ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15920 WP No. 8661 of 2026 2. SRI. K.M. BALASUBRAMANYA PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, NO.106, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS, BHUSHRESHTA LAYOUT, K.R. PURAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 036. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS (B) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.11.2025 IN APPLICATION NO. KAMAA 3328 APL 2025, VIDE ANNX - A ON THE GROUND THAT THE ORDER IS ARBITRARY, MECHANICAL, NON- SPEAKING, AND SUFFERS FROM PATENT JURISDICTIONAL ERRORS IN SO FAR AS PETITIONE CONCERNED AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Captioned petition is filed assailing the penalty imposed by respondent No.1 by exercising the power conferred on the Commissioner for Information Commission under Section 20 of Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The learned Additional Government Advocate, reiterating the grounds urged in the statement of objections, vehemently contended that the imposition of penalty by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15920 WP No. 8661 of 2026 first respondent – Commissioner is unjustified and disproportionate. She would submit that the petitioners had assigned valid reasons for the delay in furnishing the information, particularly pointing out that a Committee had been constituted to facilitate the preparation and tracing of the work report pertaining to the deputation period of the second respondent with the Forest Department. It is her contention that despite such bona fide efforts, the Commissioner has proceeded to impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/-, which, according to her, is harsh, excessive, and not commensurate with the alleged lapse. On these grounds, she seeks to persuade this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction and quash the impugned order of penalty. 3. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the material available on record, this Court has carefully examined the writ papers. The records would indicate that the second respondent, who was serving as an Assistant Conservator of Forests, was deputed to the Department of Jungle Lodges and Resorts during the period from 2012 to 2014, where he discharged duties as a Resident - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15920 WP No. 8661 of 2026 Manager. Upon completion of his deputation, he was repatriated to his parent department, namely the Forest Department. Thereafter, the second respondent sought for furnishing of his work reports for the assessment years 2012– 2013 and 2013–2014. As the said work reports were not furnished despite his request, he was constrained to invoke the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 by approaching the first respondent – Commissioner. 4. The first respondent – Commissioner, upon consideration of the records and after affording an opportunity to the petitioners, has recorded a categorical finding that there was clear negligence and inaction on the part of the petitioners in not forwarding or maintaining the work reports of the second respondent to his parent department. The material on record would disclose that such reports, which are essential service records, were neither readily available nor furnished within the statutory time frame prescribed under the Act, thereby defeating the very object of transparency and accountability envisaged under the RTI Act. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15920 WP No. 8661 of 2026 5. The explanation offered by the petitioners that a Committee had been constituted to trace and reconstruct the work reports for the relevant years, namely 2012–2013 and 2013–2014, does not commend acceptance by this Court. On the contrary, the very necessity to constitute such a Committee is indicative of serious administrative lapses and lack of diligence in maintaining official records. The inability to produce such vital service records, even after a considerable lapse of time, cannot be treated as a mere procedural irregularity, but amounts to a clear dereliction of duty. 6. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered opinion that the first respondent – Commissioner, who is vested with statutory powers under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 to impose penalty for such lapses, has exercised the said power judiciously. Rather than initiating stringent disciplinary proceedings, the Commissioner has taken a lenient view by imposing a monetary penalty of Rs.25,000/-, which cannot be said to be either arbitrary or disproportionate in the facts and circumstances of the case. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15920 WP No. 8661 of 2026 7. If the work reports pertaining to the years 2012– 2013 and 2013–2014 are not traceable even as on date, the responsibility squarely lies on the petitioners, and the Commissioner was fully justified in invoking the penal provisions under Section 20 of the Act. This Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 8. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. The petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25