- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3430 WP No. 31712 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 31712 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. S MANJUNATHA SWAMY S/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS TECHNICAL ASSISTANT TO CHIEF ENGINEER (ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE) BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO.96, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH CROSS, N.G.E.F. LAYOUT NAGARABHAVI II STAGE, BANGALORE-560 072. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KASHINATH J D.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION (CH-2) 2ND FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA OPPOSITE TO WEST GATE-2 TO VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER. 2. SRI B H VEERESH AGED ABOUT MAJOR #54, 17TH CROSS, Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3430 WP No. 31712 of 2018 M C LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR BANGALORE-560 040. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2- 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 PENALTY OF RS 25,000/- IMPOSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 ON THE COMPLAINT OF RESPONDENT NO.2 DATED 21.06.2018 AND ETC. 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 Petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved by the order dated 21.06.2018 at Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.1/Commission in terms of which the respondent No.1 has imposed the penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner on the purported allegation of not complying with the directions earlier issued. 2. Facts in brief are that; the respondent No.2 herein by way of an application dated 27.10.2014 had sought for certain information from the Office of Chief Engineer, Road - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3430 WP No. 31712 of 2018 Infrastructure, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike. It appears that not being satisfied with the information provided, respondent No.2 had preferred an appeal before the respondent No.1. Pursuant to which the respondent No.1 had summoned the Chief Engineer and he in turn by a letter dated 27.03.2018 produced at Annexure-F had appointed petitioner herein who was working as a Technical Assistant in the said office to represent him before the respondent No.1/Commission. By Order dated 31.05.2018, the Commissioner noticing the presence of the petitioner on behalf of the Chief Engineer, had appointed him as the Public Information Officer in purported exercise of his power under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity 'the Act') and on the very same day called upon him to show cause why actions shall not be initiated against him under Section 20(1) of the Act for not furnishing the information as sought for. 3. In response thereof, the petitioner herein had apparently given the response specifically pointing out that he was providing the details of the information provided to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3430 WP No. 31712 of 2018 respondent No.2 herein along with the documents. Without considering the same, the impugned order came to be passed by the respondent No.1/Commission, holding petitioner herein guilty of non-compliance with the direction, imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- which is questioned before this Court. 4. The order impugned is sought to be justified by the counsel appearing for the respondent No.1/Commission on the premise that the power of appointing the authority/ information officer in the circumstances of this case is traceable to sub- section (5) of Section 5 of the Act and once such power is exercised, Officer such as the petitioner who was treated as the Information Officer was liable for any contravention of the provision of the Act. Therefore, he submits that the order impugned cannot be found fault with. 5. Heard. Perused the records. 6. Order dated 31.05.2018 produced at Annexure-K, indicates that merely because petitioner herein had appeared before the commission on 28.03.2018, 16.04.2018, 31.05.2018 on behalf of the Chief Engineer, he was appointed as the Public - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3430 WP No. 31712 of 2018 Information Officer under purported excise of power under Section 19(8)(a)(ii) of the Act. Para 10 of the said order indicates that on the very same day petitioner herein was called upon to show cause as to why the fine shall not be imposed on him under Section 20(1) of the Act for not providing the information within 30 days as sought for. 7. Even assuming, as contented by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1/commission, that the said provision was wrongly quoted, instead of sub-section (2) of Section 5, even then such an order cannot be sustained, for the reason that though sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act provides the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer to seek assistance of any other officer, it is only on failure of such Officer furnishing and providing the assistance can be held to have contravene the directions. That cannot under any circumstances be construed as appointing the Information Officer. 8. Order dated 31.05.2018 as referred to above, do not either refer to sub-section (5) of Section 5 of the Act, nor does it indicate that petitioner herein was called upon to render - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3430 WP No. 31712 of 2018 assistance. It also does not indicate that petitioner had failed or neglected to render such assistance. Appointment of petitioner as information officer, allegation of non rendering of assistance, holding him guilty has all happened in one stroke of an order. Such an order is contrary to all canons of law, therefore on this account alone, the same is required to be quashed.. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. Order dated 31.05.2018 produced at Annexure-K and consequent order dated 21.06.2018 produced at Annexure-A are quashed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15