- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 51665 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI ALOK TIWARI CHIEF ENGINEER, CONSTRUCTIONS SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BANGALORE CANTONMENT, 18 MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 046 2. V GOPALA REDDY THE CHIEF PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER CONSTRUCTIONS SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY BANGALORE CANTONMENT 18 MILLERS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 046. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION BABA GANGANTH MARG, MUNIRKA NEW DELHI - 11067. 2. SRI DATTATARAYA MOHAN PETHAKAR FATHERNS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONERS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 1152A, VISHNU LANE TASGAON TALUK SANGLI DISTRICT - 416 312 MAHARASHTRA …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., CGSC FOR R1 R2 DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE FINAL ORDER DATED 10.10.2018 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN SECOND APPEAL VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND ETC. 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 Petitioners at relevant point of time were working as Chief Engineer and Chief Public Information Officer and Deputy Chief Engineer Constructions, South Western Railway, Bangalore Cantonment. 2. Private respondent No.2 by his application dated 10.12.2015, had sought for furnishing of information relating to Maharashtra Assembly Question No.44988 dated 22.04.1975, about certain land transaction in Sangli, Satara, old Satara District, Maharashtra. The said application was received at the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 office of the petitioners on 13.06.2016. A response to the said application was issued by the petitioners office on 29.08.2016 intimating that the information as sought for was not available in their office. The said reply was sent through registered post with acknowledgement due which was returned with a postal endorsement 'door locked'. 3. In the meanwhile, private respondent had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority on 07.11.2016, the private respondent was advised to attend the office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Construction, Bangalore Cantonment for inspection of the records. The said correspondence also returned on 28.11.2016 with a postal endorsement 'not claimed". In the meanwhile the petitioners had received as many as 8 identical applications which the private respondent had forwarded to various authorities. The petitioners have verified the records available in their unit and response to the communications which were forwarded to their office from various other authorities were sent intimating that the information sought for was not available. It was also made clear that, the information sought was pertaining to the Maharashtra Assembly proceedings and the petitioners would - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 not be having any information or possession of such information. Therefore, the question of providing the information would not arise. 4. Not being satisfied, the private respondent had preferred a second appeal before respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 had by order dated 15.09.2017 directed the petitioners to furnish para wise categorical reply within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order. Respondent No.1-Commissioner also observed that the records sought for are permanent in nature and if it were destroyed, the same were also to be informed. In furtherance to the said order of respondent No.1, an affidavit dated 09.01.2018, of one of the officers of the department was furnished to the effect that "on verification of records of this office it is found that no record pertaining to land acquisition of Miraj-Pune section was available". The said communication was sent to the private respondent along with copy to respondent No.1. Private respondent again approached respondent No.1, complaining he not receiving any response to his applications. Again, a letter was addressed to respondent No.1 reiterating that the records sought for were not available in their office - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 vide a communication dated 10.08.2018. Copy of the same was sent to both the respondents, which was duly delivered. 5. Notwithstanding the aforesaid information repeatedly being furnished by the petitioner, and the same having been taken note of by respondent No.1 as found at unnumbered paragraph No.5 of page No.2 of its orders dated 20.08.2018 and 10.10.2018 and being satisfied with the cause shown, however proceeded to impose a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- on the petitioners on the purported premise of the said information not being provided within the stipulated time as per the provisions of RTI Act. It is this order which constrained the petitioners to approach this Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the facts narrated above and submitted that though the application seeking information filed by the private respondent was dated 10.12.2015, which was originally addressed to State Public Information Officer, Minister of Railways, Rail Bhavan, New Delhi, the same was received by the office of the petitioners on 21.03.2016. The information sought for was of 22.04.1975 pertaining to the assembly session of Maharashtra over which the petitioners had no control. Accordingly, on 29.08.2016 the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 petitioners had issued a reply regarding non availability of said document which was sent to respondent No.2, thus, the petitioners had indeed complied with the requirement of law in responding to the application filed by respondent No.2 seeking information within the reasonable time contemplated under the Act. He submits further correspondence which ensued between the petitioners and the respondents were taken note of respondent No. 1 and despite being satisfied has however, passed the order which is not only unreasonable but also arbitrary erroneously holding that there was delay of two years in giving the response which was contrary to the records and the finding of respondent No.1 itself. 7. Heard and perused the records. 8. The reasons at unnumbered paragraph No.5 of impugned order dated 20.08.2018 reads as under: "On perusal of the relevant case record, it was noted by the Commission that respondent PIO had claimed in its reply that records are not available. The reply provided is just and proper. However, this reply could had bee given earlier and it was noted by the Commission that the same had been provided after a lapse of two years for which a show cause notice needs to be issued to the present PIO an Dy. Chief Engineer." - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 9. This finding and conclusion arrived by respondent No.1- Commission, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners runs contrary to the records made available. In that, admittedly, applications dated 10.12.2015, 13.06.2016 and 16.07.2016 seeking information were originally addressed by respondent No.2 to Rail Bhavan, New Delhi which were received by the office of petitioners on 21.03.2016. The information sought for is of the year 1975, pertaining to the assembly session of Maharashtra regarding land transactions situated at Satara. Annexure-B1 is the response issued by the petitioners on 29.08. 10. Thus, copy of the envelope containing the said response produced at Annexure-B2 to the writ petition, indicate the same bearing postal shara as 'door locked'. This has been repeatedly brought to the notice of respondent No. 2 as well as the First Appellate Authority and the Second Appellate Authority as seen from the documents at Annexure-F and G. The same has been duly received by the respondents. 11. Therefore, the finding and conclusion arrived by respondent No.1-Commission without adverting to the aforesaid documents which were indeed brought to their notice, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31707 WP No. 51665 of 2018 are one without application of mind to the facts and the documents furnished. The imposition of penalty of ₹ 10,000/- without reference to these documents amounts to perversity. 12. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) The writ petition is allowed. (ii) Order dated 10.10.2018 passed by respondent No.1 Second Appeal No.CIC/SWRLY/A/2017/130610 is quashed. SD/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9