- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 22454 OF 2019 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: K. S. RAMANNA S/O. LATE KARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, C/O. B. GANGADHARAIAH, NO.1769, 6TH CROSS, CHRISTIAN COLONY, MANDYA CITY- 571 401. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K S RAMANNA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER IN THE OFFICE OF THE POLICE INSPECTOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, SECURITY DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. FIRST APPELLANT AUTHORITY AND DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER, VIDHANA SOUDHA, SECURITY DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, ROOM NO. 302, 3RD FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJA URS ROAD, OPPOSITE TO WESTERN GATE OF VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B.P.RADHA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WP FILED BY PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO-CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS PERTAINING TO LETTER DATED 28.04.2018 (ANNEXURE-B) ISSUED BY THE R-1 ENDORSEMENT DATED 11.06.2018 (ANNEXURE-E) ISSUED BY R-2 AND ORDER DATED 21.01.2019 (ANNXURE-L) PASSED BY R-3 FROM THE OFFICE OF R-1 TO 3 RESPECTIVELY AND QUASH THE SAME; ISSUE THE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO FURNISHED ALL THE INFORMATION AND RECORDS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RIGHT INFORMATION ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 ORAL ORDER The petitioner-party-in-person is before this Court seeking following reliefs: "a) Wherefore the petitioner most humbly prays that this Hon'ble court be pleased to call for the entire records pertaining to letter ಸಂೆ1/ಆಐ/ / ಎಎ18, ಾಂಕ 28-04-2018 (Annexure-B) issued by the 1st respondent, endorsement, ಸಂೆ1:/ಾಹ/ / ಎ ಎ/2018 ಾಂಕ 11-06-2018 (Annexure-E) issued by respondent No. 2 and order ಸಂೆ.ಕಾಆ/8497/ಎಎ/2018 ಾಂಕ 21-01-2019 (Annexure-L) passed by 3rd respondent from the office of respondent 1 to 3 respectively and quashed the same by issuing writ of certiorari. b) issue the direction to the respondents to furnish all the information and records sought by the petitioner under the provisions of right to information Act vide Annexure- A by issuing writ of mandamus the same is quite essential in the interest of justice and equity." 2. His grievance is that he had made an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking to file items of information as against which respondent No. 1 had furnished informations with respect to Item Nos. 1 to 3 and had responded with regard to Items Nos. 4 and 5 as not applicable. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 3. That he had preferred an appeal before respondent No.2, who by Order dated 01.06.2018 produced at Annexure-D, rejected the appeal confirming the endorsement issued at Annexure-B by respondent No.1. As against which he preferred a second appeal before respondent No.3. Same came to be rejected vide Order dated 21.01.2019. Being aggrieved by the same, he is before this Court. 4. This Court, by order dated, 21.08.2024, upon the submission made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 3 furnishing the necessary information to the petitioner-party-in- person, adjourned the matter to 03.09.2024, on which date, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 filed a memo along with copies of the proceedings held by respondent No. 3 and also copies of the information that had been furnished to the petitioner-party-in-person along with the acknowledgment of the petitioner having received the same. This Court had also placed on record its appreciation for the prompt response shown by respondent No. 3 in the matter. The matter was thereafter listed on 10.09.2024 upon the request of the petitioner-party-in-person to approach respondent No. 1 for - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 inspection of the records. However, the petitioner-party-in- person had complained that he was not provided files for inspection. Accordingly, this court, by Order dated 02.06.2025, had directed the petitioner-party-in-person to appear before respondent No. 1 at 2.30 p.m. on 11.06.2025, with further direction to respondent No. 1 to make available the files for the inspection of the petitioner-party-in-person as directed by this Court by Order dated 03.09.2024. 5. On 30.06.2025, petitioner-party-in-person had submitted that in terms of the Order of this Court, dated 03.09.2024 he had indeed inspected the file. However, certain documents were not available in the file. This Court had directed the learned Additional Government Advocate to secure the original files. In the meanwhile, petitioner-party-in-person had sought time to file application seeking compensation on account of delay in furnishing the documents. The matter is listed today. 6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 3 has placed on record the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Girish - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 Ramachandra Deshpande Vs. Central Information Commission and others reported in (2013) 1 SCC 212 with regard to restriction in providing the information pertaining to the matters relating to employer and employee relationship which fall within the domain of personal information. Therefore, he submits that the information being sought for by the petitioner stands covered by the said judgment. 7. Heard perused the records. 8. As noted above, by application dated 9.03.2018, produced at Annexure A, the party-in-person had sought for five items of information which are as under: 1. ಅಾರರ ಪಣ ೆಸರು !ೆ. ಎ. "ಾಮಣ$ (ಕಲ&ಂ ೊ (), )ವೃ,- ./ಕರು 2. CAZÉ «¼Á¸À 01 2ೇ|| ಕ4ೕ5ೌಡ !ೇ"ಾ9 0. ಗಂ5ಾಧರಯ, # 1769 6ೇ ,ರುವ=, >?.@ಯ1 !ಾ2ೋ), ªÀÄAqÀå - 571401 3. !ೋ4ರುವ ದBಾ-CೇಜುಗಳF/ ಪ4.ೕಲೆ/ಾದ4ಗಳF. ಇವ=ಗಳ ವರ 1) ಎ... .ನಟ"ಾಜು ರವರ BೇCಾ £ÉÆÃAದJ(ಎ.ಆ) ದೃKೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು 2) ಅವ4ಂದ ಮುಂಬ - )ೕ ದ ವಷ ಮತು- ಆೇಶಗಳF ದೃKೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು 3) . ನಟ"ಾಜು ರವರ Pೕ2ೆ >?Qನ !ೇಸು ಇರುವ=ದ4ಂದ ಅದು ಅವರ BೇCಾ ಪ=ಸ-ಕದRS - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 ನಮೂಾTUೕ? ಇಲSCೆ ವರ ಧೃKೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು 4) ಇವ45ೆ ಮುಂಬ - )ೕಡುCಾಗ .VಾರಸುW ಾ ರುವ ಅX!ಾ4ಯ ೆಸರು ಮತು- Yಾಸ 5) ಅವರು ಪ?Zೕಷ1 ಪ[ೆಾ5ೆ2ಾS ಇ2ಾೆ5ೆ ಅವರು )ೕ ರುವ CVæPಂ\ನ ನಕಲುಗಳF, ಧೃKೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು ಈ Pೕ2ೆ !ೇ^ರುವ ಎ2ಾS ವರಗಳ ದೃKೕಕೃತ ನಕಲು !ೋ4ೆ ಮತು- ಾಖ2ೆ ಪ4.ೕRಸಲು ಅವ!ಾಶ )ೕಡುವ=ದು 4. «Äð£ÀAvÉ PÉýgÀĪÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄÄ AiÀiÁªÀ ವಷ!ೆ& ಸಂಬಂXದು` ಅವರು BೇCೆ5ೆ Bೇ4ದಂ)ಂದ 2018ವ"ೆTನದು 5. ಾa, bಾ4ಂದ cೇ!ಾTೆdೕ ಆ Bಾವಜ)ಕ ಾa, ಅX!ಾ4ಯ ೆಸರು ಮತು- ಪದಾಮ eೕR ಆಯುಕ-ರು cೆಂಗಳfರು ನಗರ, cೆಂಗಳfರು. 9. He has no qualms about information provided in respect of first three items of the information. However, he submits that his grievance is with regard to the endorsement issued at Annexure-B by respondent No. 1 stating that the information sought with regard to Item No. 4 and Item No. 5 as "not applicable" (C£Àé¬Ä¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®è). At item No.4, petitioner-party-in- person has sought for name and address of the officers who recommended name of Assistant Commissioner of Police, T.Nataraj at the time of his promotion. At item No.5, the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 petitioner-party-in-person has sought for furnishing of certified copies of purported agreement submitted by the said person at the time of his promotion. 10. On repeated queries by this Court as to the basis or the provision under which he is seeking such information, petitioner-party-in-person pleads his ignorance except stating that he thinks such procedure was adopted. When the petitioner himself is not sure as to the basis on which the information being sought by him at Item Nos. 4 and 5, of the application, or the provision under which such procedure is adopted, no error or irregularity can be found with the endorsement issued by the respondent authorities in they not being able to furnish the information which is not having any basis or source. 11. It is also necessary to note that in the order dated 21.01.2019 passed by respondent No.3, in the second appeal filed by the petitioner-party-in-person, it is noted as under: ಾಂಕ: 21.01.2019 ರಂದು Bಾವಜ)ಕ ಾa, ಅX!ಾ4 ಾಗೂ eRೕ ಇ1Wgೆಕh, iಾನBೌಧ ಭದ?kಾ lಾಗ, cೆಂಗಳfರು ನಗರ ರವರು ಪತ?ವನುm ಬ"ೆದು ಆdೕಗದ ಆೇಶದಂkೆ Pೕಲnನ ಾರರು - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 !ೋ4ರುವ ಾa,5ೆ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟhಂkೆ ಮೂಲ ಾಖ2ೆಗಳನುm ಾಜರುಪ ದು`, oಾರpೆ CೇYೆಯRS, Pೕಲnನ ಾರ45ೆ ಾa,ಯನುm ಒದTರುkಾ-"ೆ. ಇದ!ೆ& Pೕಲnನ ಾರರು ಾa,ಯು ತೃ-ಕರCಾTೆಂದು ,^ರುkಾ-"ೆ. Clearly out of 5 items of the information sought for by the petitioner-party-in-person, 3 items of information have been furnished. 2 items of information not being available have been declined as 'not applicable.' Nonetheless petitioner has been provided opportunity of inspecting the files by respondent No.2- authority as well as by this court as noted above. The petitioner-party-in-person appears to be not satisfied. At the same time petitioner-party-in-person is also unable to explain as to what information he actually requires and the basis on which he is seeking the same. 12. It is relevant to refer to the Judgment in the case of CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay reported in (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein at paragraph 63 the Apex Court has held as under: "63. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of “information” and “right to information” under clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide “advice” or “opinion” to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any “opinion” or “advice” to an applicant. The reference to “opinion” or “advice” in the definition of “information” in Section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act. 13. In the circumstances, no grounds are made out to show any further indulgence in the matter. 14. At this juncture, petitioner-party-in-person submits that he has filed an application seeking compensation for the delayed information. If the petitioner has any other grievance he is at liberty to pursue the same, and seek such remedy as may be permissible under law. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:23 WP No. 22454 of 2019 Writ petition and pending applications, if any, are accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4