The court ruled that the Karnataka Information Commission exceeded its jurisdiction by issuing directions without statutory authority.

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner-Karnataka State Public Service Commission- is before this Court seeking following relief;

"Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the orders dated 03.02.2020, 11.02.2020 and 12.02.2020 in Case No. KIC 2369 APL 2019 passed by the respondent No.2- Karnataka Information Commission vide Annexure-F, G & H and consequently dismiss the said case No.KIC 2369 APL 2019 filed by the respondent No.1."

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the averments and the grounds urged in the petition, submits that the present petition necessitated in view of the impugned orders produced at Annexures-F, G and H passed by respondent No.2 in and by which certain directions have been issued which run contrary to the very provisions of law and the same are without jurisdiction. He submits that respondent No.1 herein had filed an application seeking information in the nature of "Particulars relating to the Registration number, Score, Paper, Marks and result of Registration No.26782 (2011- 2^nd Session Departmental Examination)" from the Information Officer of the petitioner. In response to said application, an endorsement dated 31.12.2018 came to be issued stating that the information with regard to the Application No.4428/2018 pending on the file of Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal could not be furnished as the same application has not been finally determined. As such, the respondent No.1 was called upon to make fresh application upon disposal of the said proceedings. Another endorsement dated 31.12.2018 was issued stating that since the respondent No.1 is working in the post of stenographer and no results have been announced in respect of the examination conducted with respect to Subordinate Accounts Service (SAS) results were not announced.

3. Being aggrieved, respondent No.1 had preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority which came to be dismissed by order dated 05.02.2019. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 had preferred second appeal before the respondent No.2, in which respondent No.2 has passed the orders dated 03.02.2020 (Annexure-F), 11.02.2020 (Annexure- G), 12.02.2020 (Annexure H) respectively.

4. By order dated 03.02.2020 produced at Annexure- F, the respondent No.2 has called upon the Information Officer of the petitioner to;

(a) show cause as to why proceedings under Section 20 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'RTI Act') shall not be initiated by imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-; and

(b) to furnish the Answer Script and the certified copies of Marks within 7 days.

5. By virtue of Annexures-G and H the respondent No.2 has directed the Information Officer of the petitioner to;

(a) retain the Answer Scripts of the examination conducted, for a period of 1 year instead of 6 months; and to

(b) appoint one Smt.Divyaprabhu, Controller of Examinations as Public Information Officer and has further reiterated its earlier order to respond to show cause notice issued under Section 20 (1) of RTI Act.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid directions issued by the respondent No.2 being without authority of law requires to be quashed. He submits that there has been substantial compliance made by the Information Officer of petitioner by furnishing the certified marks of the respondent No.1 and the notification with regard to announcement of his result, and also copy of the postal dispatch register. Thus, he submits that since there is substantial compliance, respondent/authorities cannot pass the directions as sought to be done in the impugned orders.

7. As regards direction to retain the Answer Script for 1 year instead of 6 months, counsel for the petitioner submits that the answer scripts are expected to be retained by the Commission only for a period