Applications for information must contain specific particulars, and the Commission must apply its mind before entertaining the application to avoid imposing penalties on public officials.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Sri.B.K.Manjunath., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy., learned HCGP for respondents 2 to 4 & 6 have appeared in person.

Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., learned counsel for respondent No.1 has appeared through video conferencing.

2. The brief facts are these:

On 20/1/2014 Sri.H.T.Giriyappa - the fifth respondent made an application under Sec. 6(1) of the Right to Information Act (for short 'the Act') before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner/ Public Information Officer, Tumkur seeking certain information. The copy of the said application is at Annexure-A. The application was transferred to Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District by a letter dtd.:27/1/2014 requesting to furnish the information directly to the applicant. At this juncture, the applicant filed an appeal under Sec. 19(1) of the Act before the Assistant Commissioner on 16/6/2014 stating that on 20/1/2014 he filed an application seeking information and the same was forwarded to the Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District who in turn did not furnish any information except furnishing only the available proceeding in his office and requested the Assistant Commissioner to issue information sought for in his application.

After the appeal was filed by the applicant, a direction was issued by the Assistant Commissioner to the Tahasildar to provide information sought for by the applicant. Accordingly, the Tahasildar issued an endorsement to the applicant stating that the information sought by him can be obtained from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur District. Thereafter, on the basis of the said endorsement, the appeal came to be disposed of on 30/7/2014.

As things stood thus, the applicant approached the Karnataka State Information Commission and filed an appeal against the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner only against the Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk, Tumkur District. The Commission passed the order on 6/3/2015 in the appeal filed by the applicant stating that the Deputy Commissioner has not furnished the opinion within the prescribed time and directed the Deputy Commissioner to take suitable action and provide information before 31/3/2015 with an information to the Commission and the case was adjourned to 24/4/2015.

On 24/4/2015, the Commission passed the following order:

"In view of the above omissions and violations of RTI Act Commission orders Smt.Anuradha, ADC and Public Information Officer office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur, Sri.Shambulinga, Tahasildar, Kunigal Taluk, tumkur District to show cause within 30 days why action should not be taken against him under Sec. 20(1) of the RTI Act to levy penalty of Rs.250.0000 per day to a maximum of Rs.25,000.0000 for the delay in providing the required information. The case is adjourned to 29/7/2015 at 3.00 PM for further hearing."

On 29/7/2015, the Commission directed the petitioner to pay penalty of Rs.20,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) within 30 days.

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commission on 24/4/2015 and 29/7/2015, petitioner has filed this Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner and respondents have urged several contentions.

4. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the respective parties and perused the Writ papers and also the Annexures with utmost care.

Sri.B.K.Manjunath., learned counsel for petitioner in presenting his argument vehemently contended that the application is very vague and no specific particulars are sought in the application. Hence, the proceedings initiated by the Commission and imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law.

In reply, Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., learned counsel for respondent No.1 justified the order passed by the Commission. He contended that the Public Information Officer did not furnish the information as sought by the applicant. Hence, taking note of the matter in issue, the Commission is justified in imposing penalty and accordingly passed