Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
H.T. Narendra Prasad, J.
State Public Information Officer & Deputy Registrar (Establishment) – Petitioner
Versus
Karnataka Information Commission and Ors. – Respondents
W.P.No.26763 of 2013 (GM-RES) C/W. W.P. No.26762 of 2013 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 09-01-2019
Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 19(3) - Quash - Appointment by public authorities inter alia of CPIOs and extracts - Case are that second respondent herein filed an application seeking certified copies of notices received office of Registrar General from advocate seeking to desist from continuing to use pirated Kannada software action taken on notices received from advocate replies sent to notices received from advocate and names and contact details of Registrar Generals of High Court of Karnataka during application filed seeking information pertaining to bringing to knowledge of supplier Kannada software about copying Kannada software and its installation in computers of courts subordinate to High Court of Karnataka and other similar information – Held, RTI Act to provide additional mode for accessing information with public authorities which has already formulated rules and schemes for making said information available - Certainly if said rules regulations and schemes do not provide for accessing information which has been made accessible RTI Act resort can be had provision of RTI Act but not to duplicate or to multiply modes of accessing information - Court has that as some of information sought in said case was available Karnataka High Court Act and Rules made there it was not open for respondent to ask for copies of same RTI Act - He stated that information in respect of item said case related to Writ Petition respondent was a party to said proceeding was open to respondent to file an application in accordance with Rules for certified copies of the order sheets or relevant documents - Case on hand information which is sought by second respondent related to legal notice which is issuer by second respondent through his advocate - This is available with second respondent - In respect of other documents related which was pending in Civil Court Bangalore he can obtain same by applying for certified copies as per provisions Rules of Practice - Since second respondent is party to proceedings he can apply for certified copies and obtain same - Application by a party-A party to a suit or proceedings is entitled at any stage of proceeding to obtain copies of record suit or proceeding including documents which have been admitted in evidence - [Irrespective of whether documents so admitted in evidence are originals or certified copies – Petition allowed
These two writ petitions are interconnected with each other. Hence the matters are clubbed together, heard and disposed of by this common order.
2. These writ petitions are directed against the order passed by the first respondent, both dated 30.04.2013 in KIC No.10682/PTN/2012 in W.P.No.26762/2013 and in KIC No.10684/PTN/2012 in W.P.No.26763/2013 (Annexure-F).
3. The brief facts of the case are that the second respondent herein filed an application on 07.05.2012 in W.P.No.26762/2013 seeking certified copies of notices received by the office of the Registrar General from advocate Dr.S.Krishnamurthy seeking to desist from continuing to use pirated Surabhi 2000 Kannada software, action taken on the notices received from advocate Dr.S.Krishnamurthy, replies sent to the notices received from advocate Dr.S.Krishnamurthy and names and contact details of the Registrar Generals of the High Court of Karnataka during 2009-10. In W.P.No.26763/2013 application dated 04.06.2012 is filed seeking information pertaining to bringing to the knowledge of the supplier of Surabhi 2000 Kannada software about copying of Surabhi Kannada software and its installation in the computers of courts subordinate to High Court of Karnataka and other similar information. The applications filed under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’ for short) are produced as Annexure-A to both the petitions. Pursuant to the applications, the State Public Information Officer had issued endorsements dated 25.06.2012 and 21.06.2012 in W.P.No.26762/2013 and W.P.No.26763/2013, respectively.
3. Being aggrieved by the order of State Public Information Officer, the respondent No.2 herein filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Registrar (Judicial), High Court of Karnataka under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act which came to be numbered as RTI. Appeal No.43/2012 in W.P.No.26762/2013 and RTI. Appeal No.40/2012 in W.P.No.26763/2013. The appellate authority, after considering the rival contentions of the parties passed an order dated 15.09.2012 as per AnnexureC in both the cases.
4. Being aggrieved by the same, respondent No.2 herein filed appeals under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the first respondent Karnataka Information Commission. The first respondent passed orders on 30.04.2013 produced as Annexure F in both the cases. The operative portion of the orders is extracted here-in-below :
xxx xxx
5. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the first respondent dated 30.04.2013 (Annexure-F), the present writ petitions are filed.
6. Sri Naganand, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri S.Sriranga for the petitioner submits that as regards the information which is sought for by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-A in W.P.No.26762/2013, the information which is available with the petitioner has been furnished to the second respondent and the information which is not available with the petitioner and the information which is not under the control of the Public Authority, to that effect, petitioner has issued an endorsement. As regards the application as per Annexure-A in W.P.No.26763/2013 is concerned, petitioner issued an endorsement that no such information is available on record. Some of the information which were produced in O.S.No.4132/2010 in which respondent No.2 was a party to the proceeding.
7. He has relied on the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of THE REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA vs. R.S.MISRA (W.P.(C) No.3530/2011, disposed of on 21.11.2017) and judgment of this Court in the case of STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER vs. N.ANBARASAN reported in ILR 2009 Kar.3890 to contend that if the information is available under any other Statute, the same will not be covered under the provisions of RTI Act.
8. He further submits that the direction given by the Karnataka Information Commission is contrary to the provisions of Sections 5(3), 5(4) and 5(5) of the RTI Act. Hence the impugned orders dated 30.04.2013 at Annexure-F in bot
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
