- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 65831 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: B. PRABHAKAR S/O BYACHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS WORKING AS EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, AT SPECIAL DIVISION (ROADS & INFRASTRUCTURE) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HEAD OFFICE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER RIGHT TO INFORMATION COMMISSION, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. B.H.VEERESHA AGED ABOUT MAJOR, NO.54, 17TH CROSS, M.C.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040. 3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THE BRUHATH BANGALORE Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 MAHANAGARA PALIKE, HUDSON CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MEGHA SUNIL.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 & R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 VIDE ANNEX-A AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE ORDER DATED 04.08.2016 PASSED VIDE ANNEX-B PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before this Court seeking following reliefs; "(i) Issue writ or any other order or direction or any other writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order dated 06.05.2016 bearing No.Ka Ma A 9736 APL vide Annexure-A and also order dated 04.08.2016 bearing No.Ka Ma A 9736 APL 2014 vide Annexure-B passed by the respondent No.1 as illegal and arbitrary. Consequently, dismiss the 2nd Appeal bearing Ka Ma A 9736 APL 2014 filed by the respondent No.2 as not maintainable in the eye of law. (ii) Issue any other writ or order or direction deems fit to the facts and circumstances of the present and to meet the interest of justice." - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 2. Case of the petitioner is that; he was working as a Executive Engineer (Civil) at a relevant point of time at Rajaji Nagar, Division of BBMP, and was also a Public Information Officer. An application seeking information of the details required to be prepared and maintained under Section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'Act') was made by respondent No.2 on 03.07.2014. That on receipt of the said application, since information sought was, with regard to statutory compliance mandated on all the public authorities under the Act and in the instant case it was the Commissioner who was required to comply with the requirement of Section 4 of the Act, petitioner apparently on 04.07.2014 transferred the said application to the respondent No.3/the Public Information Officer and the Assistant Commissioner (Admin-1) BBMP for compliance. The action taken by the petitioner was also communicated to the respondent No.2. 3. However, respondent No.2 preferred first appeal before the Chief Engineer of BBMP, West Zone alleging no compliance by the petitioner. That petitioner on receipt of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 notice of the said appeal had appeared and submitted his defence and also reason for he transferring the application of respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, on 17.07.2014 the Public Information Officer/the Assistant Commissioner (Admin-1) BBMP had already disclosed/furnished the information sought for by respondent No.2 by way of a compact disc. Not being satisfied with the same, respondent No.2 preferred a second appeal before the respondent No.3. 4. That without adverting to the reply issued by the petitioner and also explanation offered by petitioner in he transferring the application of respondent No.2 to the Public Authority, respondent No.1 has passed the impugned order dated 06.05.2016 imposing penalty of Rs.15,000/- on the petitioner. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is before this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the information sought for by the respondent No.2 apart from being general in nature is also not the one which is maintained by the petitioner. He submits that the compliance of the requirement of Section 4 of the Act is an - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 obligation of the Public Authority over which the petitioner has no control. He also refers to order dated 1.3.2013 produced at Annexure-N1 and the order dated 20.06.2013 produced at Annexure-N2 wherein under similar facts situation of the matter of an application being made by certain persons therein seeking information under Section 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Act, the Karnataka Information Commission itself had directed such request has to be transferred to the Public Officer who is the Public Authority, has held that the Commissioner, BBMP, Head Office is the Public Authority, who is expected to provide the information under Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, he submits that there is inconsistency in the orders passed by the respondent No.1/Commission. While in the orders produced at Annexure-N1 and Annexure-N2 under similar circumstances, it was held that the Commissioner, BBMP, Head Office was the Public Authority responsible for maintaining and decimating the information, particularly, to be maintained under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, if that logic is applied, the impugned orders now imposing the responsibility on the petitioner and subjecting him for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 payment of penalty is unsustainable. Hence, seeks for allowing of the petition. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1/ Commission on the other hand, referring to Section 6 of the Act, submits that it was the bounden duty of the petitioner herein as a Public Information Officer and their assistants to furnish the information as sought for. Non- compliance of the same has resulted in the impugned orders. 6. Heard. Perused the records. 7. The information sought for by the respondent No. 2 is in the nature of a query whether or not there was a compliance to provisions of Sections 4(1)(a) and 4(1)(b) of the Act and not with regard to any information thereof. Petitioner under the circumstances has thought it appropriate to forward the said application to the Commissioner, BBMP. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner, this mode of action was apparently adopted by the petitioner in view of the orders dated 01.03.2013 and dated 20.06.2013 produced at Annexures-N1 and N2 respectively, wherein under similar - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 circumstances, the State Commission had held Commissioner, BBMP, Head office is the "Public Authority", who is expected to prepare the information under Section 4(1)(a) and Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Therefore, no error can be found with the action of the petitioner in forwarding the application to the respondent No.3. 8. That in any event, records reveal that information as sought for by the respondent No.2 had been furnished by the Public Information Officer/ Assistant Commissioner, BBMP, which apparently has not been taken note of by the respondent No.1 while passing the impugned orders. 9. In that view of the matter, following; ORDER i. Writ Petition is disposed of. ii. Order dated 06.05.2016 produced at Annexure-A and order dated 04.08.2016 produced at Annexure-B passed by the respondent No.1/Commissioner are set aside. iii. Matter is remitted to the respondent No.1/Commissioner to re-appreciate the cause shown - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5912 WP No. 65831 of 2016 by the petitioner, more particularly, taking into consideration its earlier orders produced at Annexure- N1 and Annexure- N2 to the writ petition and pass appropriate orders thereon and also take into consideration the information already having been furnished by the respondent No.3 to the respondent No.2. iv. The petitioner herein had apparently deposited the amount pursuant to the interim order dated 29.12.2016. The registry shall release the same to the petitioner on proper identification. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 2 Sl No.: 7