- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2690 WP No.7257 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.7257 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFROMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ESTABLISHMENT) (NOW JOINT REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION GROUND FLOOR, 'MAHITHI SOUDHA', DEVARAJ ARASU ROAD, OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE-02, BENGALURU- 560 001 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER. 2. MOHAN CHANDRA P., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O JANARDHANA NAYAK P, RESIDING AT PANJIGAR HOUSE, KALANJA POST, SULIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 212. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2690 WP No.7257 of 2020 (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; V/O DATED 31.05.2021 R2- SRI. MOHAN CHANDRA P., PARTY-IN-PERSON (ABSENT)) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER This writ petition is against the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity "the Act, 2005") upon the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 herein. 2. Respondent No.2 herein by an application dated 03.08.2018 had sought for certain information in the nature of certified copies of the Dispatch Registers for the periods- (1) 15.10.2014 to 31.10.2014; (2). 01.01.2016 to 30.01.2016; (3) 15.07.2016 to 30.07.2016; (4) 10.10.2016 to 30.10.2016; (5) 25.07.2015 to 05.08.2015. The said application was responded by a reply dated 06.08.2018 by the State Public Information Officer/petitioner No.2, expressing inability to furnish the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2690 WP No.7257 of 2020 documents, as the information sought for was unclear and not specific. Yet again, respondent No.2 preferred similar application dated 06.09.2018, which was also responded by similar reply dated 07.09.2018, against which an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2005 was filed before the First Appellate Authority. The First appellate Authority by order dated 02.11.2018, taking note of the ambiguity in the information sought for and the response issued by the Information Officer, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred Second Appeal under Section 19(3) and 20 of the Act, 2005. 3. Petitioner in the said appeal made it very clear that the information sought could not be provided as there was no clarity and if the applicant files a fresh application seeking specific information the same would be provided. Said submission has been taken note as found at paragraph No.11 of the impugned order. 4. Notwithstanding the same, the Second Appellate Authority by the impugned order has directed the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2690 WP No.7257 of 2020 No.2 herein to furnish the information as sought for within twenty days. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out to paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, wherein it is noted that the information sought by the respondent No.2 was pertaining to his case which was pending before this Court. He submits that no such information was provided either in his two applications or before the First Appellate Authority and not even before the Second Appellate Authority except stating that it pertains to his case. He submits, even now, if the respondent No.2 provides specific details of the information sought for, the same would be provided to in accordance with law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, do not dispute the fact that in the information as sought for by the respondent No.2 except stating the dates of the Dispatch Registers he has not given the specific details. The First Appellate Authority, vide its order dated 02.11.2018 at paragraph No.9 has observed that the Establishment of the High Court of Karnataka has got 66 branches and practically - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2690 WP No.7257 of 2020 every branch has got a Dispatch Register. As such, the respondent No.2/applicant was required to give specific details of the information sought for by him. In the absence of the same, the Information Officer cannot be expected to issue any information. 7. Respondent No.2/applicant party-in-person, is not present. It appears that he had sought permission to appear in person and he was called upon to seek necessary permission/certificate from the Party-in-Person Committee, which has not been complied with. 8. Nonetheless, in the light of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that, if in the event of respondent No.2/applicant making a fresh application providing specific details of his case as noted at paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, the specific Dispatch Register pertaining to his case would be provided. 9. Submission is taken on record. 10. Petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 18.02.2020 is quashed. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:2690 WP No.7257 of 2020 11. Respondent No.2/applicant is at liberty to make a fresh application providing specific details of his case and the information sought for in such an event the concerned authority shall provide the necessary information in accordance with law. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13