1. The 2nd respondent herein – Mr. A.R. Vishwanatha, submitted an application, on 05.12.2010, before the City Public Information Officer, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore, the designated officer, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), seeking “information and certified copies of Assets and Liabilities statements submitted to the Karnataka Lokayukta, by all sitting MLAs, MLCs, BBMP Corporators and also to provide statements filed by MLAs with reference to various criminal cases pending before the various Courts of Government of Karnataka, against MLAs”. The designated authority informed the 2nd respondent/applicant, as per Rule 14 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005 (for short ‘the Rules’) to file individual applications in respect of each MLA, MLC of the State. The applicant was notified that BBMP Corporators are not required to file Assets and Liabilities statements before the Karnataka Lokayukta, under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

2. The applicant by withholding the information furnished, vide the communication dated 13.12.2010, supra, having filed a complaint on 20.10.2011, under S.18 of the Act and the Karnataka State Information Commission (for short ‘the Commission’) having issued a notice dated 08.09.2011 and the petitioner having appeared and filed statement of objections dated 03.11.2011 and the Commission having passed the orders dated 03.11.2011 and 09.02.2012, vide Annexures-F and J, to allow the complainant, to have access to the relevant records and, provide the information as identified by the 3rd applicant, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed to quash the said orders.

3. Sri B.A. Belliappa, learned advocate, firstly, contended that the 2nd respondent having not exhausted the remedy of filing of Appeal provided under S.19 of the Act, the complaint filed by invoking S.18 of the Act, being not maintainable, 1st respondent has acted in excess of the jurisdiction i.e., in entertaining the complaint and passing the impugned orders. Secondly, 1st respondent has not considered the scope of the provisions under Ss.18 and 19 of the Act. Thirdly, under Rule 14, the request of the applicant seeking information being relatable to ‘one subject matter’ and 2nd respondent having sought information in respect of Assets and Liabilities statements submitted to the Karnataka Lokayukta by all the sitting MLAs, MLCs and also to provide the statements filed by MLAs with reference to various criminal cases pending before various Courts in the State of Karnataka, in view of the applicant having been informed to file separate applications in respect of each MLA, MLC, as per the intimation dated 13.12.2010, the 1st respondent has committed illegality in entertaining the complaint and in passing the orders dated 03.11.2011 and 09.02.2012.

4. Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned advocate for the 2nd respondent, on the other hand contended that having due regard of Rule 14, the Public Information Officer, ought to have furnished the information of atleast one MLA/MLC and instead, a communication dated 13.12.2010 having only been sent, complaint filed was entertained and the orders dated 03.11.2011 and 09.02.2012 were passed. Learned advocate made submission in support of the impugned orders.

5. The 2nd respondent, though served with the notice of this writ petition has remained unrepresented.

6. Perused the writ record. The points for consideration are:

(i) Whether a single application filed seeking information and certified copies of the Asset and Liability statements submitted by all the sitting MLAs, MLCs of the State, to the Karnataka Lokayukta, is tenable in view of Rule 14 of the Karnataka Right to Information Rules, 2005?

(ii) Whether the Information Commission has the power under S.19 of the Act to direct the access to the relevant records and provide the information of the public authority, as may be identified by a complainant?

Re: Point (i):

7. Annexure-B is the applicatio