IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

WRIT PETITION NO. 619 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

P. PRASANNA KUMAR S/O LATE POTHANNA,

AGED 53 YEARS,

WORKING AS PUBLIC

INFORMATION OFFICER AND ARO,

MATTIKERE SUBDIVISION

BRUHAT BANGALURU

MAHA NAGARA PALIKE BANGALORE - 560054.

Digitally

signed by

…PETITIONER

VANAMALA

N

(BY SMT. SUMANA BALIGA M.,ADVOCATE)

Location:

HIGH

COURT OF

KARNATAKA

AND:

1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

2^ND FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING,

BANGALORE - 560 001

REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. M SRINIVAS MURTHY AGE MAJOR, NO.12, GANGAMMA TEMPLE STREET, JALAHALLI POST, BANGALORE - 560 013.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. SUGUNA R REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1) DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2023 BY THE R1 IN KIC/10058/APL/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE-J; 2) DIRECTION TO QUASH THE INTIMATION DATED 12/12/2023 BY THE SECRETARY OF R1 BEARING NO. SECY/03/2023 VIDE ANNEXURE K.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is an Assistant Revenue Officer with Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and he is nominated as a Public Information Officer. The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders of the State Chief Information Commissioner, Karnataka Information Commission in the proceedings in No.KIC/10058/APL/2023 [Annexure-J]. The State Chief Information Commissioner, in exercise of powers under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 while directing the petitioner to furnish information as sought for by the second respondent, has imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- holding that he is in default and he must deposit this penalty into the Government "Head of Account No.0070-60-118-0-01-000" within a period of one month.

2. This Court, on 22.01.2024, has granted interim order and as such the direction to pay penalty stands suspended. The facts are mostly undisputed. The second respondent has sought for certain information relating to transfer of revenue entries relevant to the year 2010-11 and the petitioner, who was the Public Information Officer as of the date of the application viz., 26.08.2022, has not furnished the information within the first thirty [30] days or the next forty five [45] days. This has constrained the second respondent to initiate the proceedings with the State Chief Information Commissioner. However, it is seen from the records that though the petitioner has firstly issued an endorsement to the second respondent stating that because the concerned has filed a response objecting to the application being favoured, he has ultimately furnished the information to the second respondent.

3. The petitioner in his defense contends that initially efforts were made to secure information from the office of the Sub-Registrar and within his own office but the records were not located until 27.10.2023 and thereafter the information is furnished. The State Chief Information Commissioner has proceeded on the ground that the petitioner has failed to offer any explanation for the delay. Ms.Sumana Baliga M., the learned counsel for the petitioner, disputes this finding relying upon the copies of the communication dated 03.11.2023 and an Intimation to the second respondent of the even date asserting that the State Chief Information Commissioner was informed about the second respondent being furnished with the information by filing a copy of the communication dated 03.11.2023. The learned counsel argues that the State Chief Information Commissioner has not considered this communication and the Intimation.

4. There is some controversy on whether the petitioner did file this copy of this communication on 03.11.2023 with both Mr. Sharath Gowda G. B., the learned counsel for the first respondent and Ms.Suguna R. Reddy, the learned counsel for the second respondent, proposing to elab