IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO.7257 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

1. REGISTRAR (JUDICIAL)

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AND APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER RTI ACT, 2005 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFROMATION OFFICER AND DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ESTABLISHMENT)

(NOW JOINT REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJENDRA M.S.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SUMA B N

1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION Location: HIGH COURT OF GROUND FLOOR, KARNATAKA 'MAHITHI SOUDHA', DEVARAJ ARASU ROAD, OPP. TO VIDHANA SOUDHA WEST GATE-02, BENGALURU-

560 001 REPRESENTED BY COMMISSIONER.

2. MOHAN CHANDRA P., AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O JANARDHANA NAYAK P, RESIDING AT PANJIGAR HOUSE, KALANJA POST, SULIA TALUK, DAKSHINA KANNADA-574 212.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;

V/O DATED 31.05.2021 R2- SRI. MOHAN CHANDRA P., PARTY-IN-PERSON (ABSENT))

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 18.02.2020 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU THE R-1 VIDE ANNEXURE-H.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

ORAL ORDER

This writ petition is against the order dated 18.02.2020 passed by the State Information Commissioner under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity "the Act, 2005") upon the appeal filed by the respondent No.2 herein.

2. Respondent No.2 herein by an application dated

03.08.2018 had sought for certain information in the nature of certified copies of the Dispatch Registers for the periods- (1) 15.10.2014 to 31.10.2014; (2). 01.01.2016 to 30.01.2016; (3) 15.07.2016 to 30.07.2016; (4) 10.10.2016 to 30.10.2016; (5) 25.07.2015 to 05.08.2015. The said application was responded by a reply dated 06.08.2018 by the State Public Information Officer/petitioner No.2, expressing inability to furnish the documents, as the information sought for was unclear and not specific. Yet again, respondent No.2 preferred similar application dated 06.09.2018, which was also responded by similar reply dated 07.09.2018, against which an appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2005 was filed before the First Appellate Authority. The First appellate Authority by order dated 02.11.2018, taking note of the ambiguity in the information sought for and the response issued by the Information Officer, dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved, respondent No.2 preferred Second Appeal under Section 19(3)

and 20 of the Act, 2005.

3. Petitioner in the said appeal made it very clear that the information sought could not be provided as there was no clarity and if the applicant files a fresh application seeking specific information the same would be provided. Said submission has been taken note as found at paragraph No.11 of the impugned order.

4. Notwithstanding the same, the Second Appellate Authority by the impugned order has directed the petitioner No.2 herein to furnish the information as sought for within twenty days.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners, pointed out to paragraph No.17 of the impugned order, wherein it is noted that the information sought by the respondent No.2 was pertaining to his case which was pending before this Court. He submits that no such information was provided either in his two applications or before the First Appellate Authority and not even before the Second Appellate Authority except stating that it pertains to his case. He submits, even now, if the respondent No.2 provides specific details of the information sought for, the same would be provided to in accordance with law.

6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, do not dispute the fact that in the information as sought for by the respondent No.2 except stating the dates of the Dispatch Registers he has not given the