A penalty for delay in providing RTI information under Section 20(1) is unsustainable if the Public Information Officer responded within the 30-day statutory period requesting necessary details from the applicant to process the request.

Digitally signed by SUVARNA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE ORDER DATED 29.09.2022 AND QUASH ORDER IN CASE NO. KMAAA/12450/APL/2022 DATED 29.09.2022 (UNDER ANNX-L TO THE WRIT PETITION) ISSUED BY THE R-1 BY ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

ORAL ORDER

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following prayer:

(a) QUASH Order in Case No. KMaAA/12450/APL/2022 dated 29-09-2022 (under Annexure-L to the writ petition) issued by the 1st respondent by issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari and grant all consequential benefits.

(b) ISSUE such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this writ petition.

2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent No.2 herein filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information in respect of approvals made and powers sanctioned to “Sonin Developers, LLP Projects”, 22nd main, BBMP, Ward No. 187, J.P Nagar 5th phase, Bangalore along with all the supported documents. The application though dated 30.11.2021, but it is submitted only on 17.12.2021. Pursuant to the said application, the petitioner is not in a position to provide the information and requested the respondent No.2 to provide revenue register number and if the second respondent is not satisfied with the complaint, he can appeal to the third respondent by communication dated 14.01.2022. Then the second respondent has appealed before the third respondent on 11.02.2022 stating that the reply by the petitioner is misguided and information is not provided. The third respondent, by communication dated 18.02.2022, requested the second respondent to visit the office on 04.03.2022 at 03.30 p.m. for looking into the matter. Thereafter, the third respondent by proceedings dated 04.03.2022, communicated that the petitioner shall provide the information as sought for by the petitioner dated 14.01.2022. The petitioner, in furtherance of the communication dated 28.04.2022 to the respondent No.3, transferred the application of respondent No.2 for approval of the file in the name of one Sri. Ravikumar and others (Sonin Developers) and for providing information. Subsequent to the approval of respondent No.3, the petitioner by communication dated 10.05.2022 provided the entire set of documents pertaining to the information sought. The second respondent however, approached the Appellant Authority under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 complaining about the information not having been provided by the petitioner. A notice was issued on 21.07.2022, summoning the petitioner to appear before him on 16.08.2022 at 11.00 a.m. The petitioner appeared and submitted that there is no dereliction of duty. But it is the grievance of the petitioner that without considering the explanation provided by the petitioner, the first respondent herein by its order dated 16.08.2022 imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000/- upon the petitioner on the ground that information provided by the petitioner was not in time. Later the penalty amount is reduced to Rs.10,000/- by order dated 29.09.2022. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner