- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 23617 OF 2022 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KARNATKAA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 56 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, MALATHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, VIDHANA SOUDHA, WEST GATE-2, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. MR. RAJABHAKSA HANIFASAB UKKALI, S/O MR. HANIFSAB UKKALI, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, NO. 541, A MODEL SECTOR NO. 50 AND 63, SOUTH PHASE, NAVANAGARA, BANGALAKOTE - 587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SHARATH GOWDA G B, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY THE R1 ON 29.07.2022 IN APPEAL NO.KIC 17859 APL 2021CALL FR RECORDS FROM THE R1 IN APPEAL NO. KIC 17859 APL 2021 ANNEXURE-A WHICH HAS RESULTED IN PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. Digitally signed by BELUR RANGADHAMA NANDINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Respondent No.2 had sought for certain information from petitioner herein with regard to purported de-notification of Bellandur. An enquiry was conducted by the Lokayukta initially submitting the ‘B’ report, which was rejected and a fresh investigation was undertaken. The information sought also included furnishing of entire records and certified copies of the office notes. 2. In response thereof petitioner herein had issued an endorsement stating that since, the fresh enquiry has been ordered and the investigation was underway, requisitioned information/documents cannot be issued in view of the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, 'Act, 2005'). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 3. Aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2005 which was disposed of by order dated 26.08.2021 accepting the stand of the petitioner regarding the investigation being underway and the information as such could not be given. 4. Not being satisfied respondent No.2 preferred second appeal. Petitioner herein had submitted written objections to the appeal specifically raising two contentions: - Firstly, that the investigation was completed and the final report was filed on 21.08.2021 and cognizance of the matter was taken and the matter was seized before the competent jurisdictional Court in Spl.C.C.No.819/2022 as such respondent No.2 could apply and obtain the necessary copies from the said Court. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 - Secondly the requisition for office note could not be considered in the light of the provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. 5. Declining the second contention, respondent No.1 herein has passed the impugned order as found at Annexure - A directing the petitioner herein to furnish the office notes while accepting its stand regarding respondent No.2 being able to obtain the information from the jurisdictional Court in Special C.C.No.819/2022. 6. Being aggrieved, by the impugned order to the extent directing the petitioner to furnish the office notes to respondent No.2, petitioner is before this Court. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner taking this Court to the record, submits that impugned order which consists of 6 paragraphs of which 5 paragraphs are the extracts of the facts and 6th paragraph is a direction without there being any discussion or providing any reason. He submits that respondent No.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 has not adverted to the specific stand taken by the petitioner regarding information particularly of internal office notes not being amenable to be furnished in the light of the provisions contained in Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, 2005. He submits that Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, 2005 exempts furnishing of the information which would impede process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. He specifically points out that though investigation is completed, the prosecution still underway, such an information unless, provided under the law cannot be granted and if, respondent No.2 makes an application before the competent Court and if the competent Court provides, it is always available for him to obtain the same. Therefore, he submits that respondent No.1 could not have directed the petitioner to issue the internal office note without assigning any reason or adverting to the stand taken to the petitioner. And as regards the grounds taken seeking exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005, no order has been passed - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 adverting to the satisfaction of the larger public interest, to justify the disclosure of such information. Hence, he submits that the order impugned requires to be quashed to the extent directing the petitioner to furnish the information, in the nature of office notes. 8. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, justifying the order submits that Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005 exempts furnishing of information of personal in nature, and the information regarding Office Note sought for with respondent No.2 do not constitute personal information. Therefore, he submits that no error or irregularity can be found in the order passed by respondent No.1. 9. Heard. Perused the records. 10. Petitioner in response to the appeal filed by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 had taken specific stand of exemption provided under Sections 8(1)(h) and 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. 11. Said Sections read as under: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 "8(1)(h) - information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; 8(1)(j) - information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the Appellate Authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information." 12. There cannot be any dispute that Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, 2005 exempts furnishing of information if there is an apprehension with regard to the prosecution of the offender. Respondent No.1 has not adverted to the reasons assigned by the petitioner either under Section 8(1)(h) of the Act, 2005 or under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act, 2005. 13. Be that as it is, admitted facts being the investigation has been completed, final report has been filed, cognizance of the matter has been taken and matter - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:26717 WP No. 23617 of 2022 is pending consideration in Special C.C.No.819/2022, which fact has been accepted by respondent No.1, the direction to the extent directing the petitioner to furnish information in the nature of the office notes, under the facts and circumstances cannot be sustained. 14. Writ Petition is allowed. Impugned order to the said extent is quashed. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to obtain such information as may be available from the Court before whom the matter is now seized. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE brn List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2