THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2025 PASSED BY THE R1 i.e., TYHE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION IN CASE NO. KA MAA A 6939 APL 2024 VIDE ANNEXURE -F AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs;

a. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the 1st respondent i.e., the Karnataka Information Commission in Case No.Ka.Maa.A 6939 APL 2024 vide Annexure-F;

b. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the R3 to furnish information the assets and liability statements for the year 1997-2005 on One Sri. S.P. Jayapal s/o Papanna who worked as DC at the Central Office, KH Road, Bengaluru during 1990-2002.

c. And grant such other order or directions as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner had approached the respondent No.3 seeking for furnishing of the asset and liability statement of one Sri.S.P.Jayapal S/o Papanna, who was working as the Deputy Controller at the Central Office, KH Road, Bengaluru during 1990-2002, on the ground that he had fraudulently obtained the sale deed from the petitioner and there being civil suits which were pending, these documents were required by the petitioner.

3. The said application came to be rejected by respondent No.3 on the ground that the same would come within the purview of Clause (j) Sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short hereinafter referred to as “RTI Act, 2005”), namely that it relates to personal information, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual. It is challenging the said order the petitioner had approached respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 upheld the order passed by respondent No.3 and it is in that background that the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

4. Sri G.B. Nandish Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits as follows:

4.1. It is contended that Sri S.P. Jayapal has procured a sale deed in respect of the petitioner's property by practising fraud upon the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, the said transaction has been reflected in the Income Tax Returns filed by Sri S.P. Jayapal. In that view of the matter, it is submitted that the information sought by the petitioner cannot be treated as personal information exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4.2. Learned counsel further submits that Sri S.P. Jayapal is a public servant and, therefore, any immovable property acquired by him, together with the corresponding disclosure of assets and liabilities required to be made under the applicable service rules and statutory provisions, partakes the character of public information. It is his submission that details relating to the acquisition of assets by a public servant cannot be regarded as purely personal information, particularly when such information is sought in connection with allegations of fraud and illegal acquisition of property.

4.3. Learned counsel therefore contends that respondent No.3 has erred in rejecting the petitioner's request for information on the ground of exemption under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005, and that respondent No.1 has further erred in affirming the said decision. On the aforesaid grounds, he submits that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the application submitted by the petitioner seeking the requested information and documents deserves to be allowed.

5. Heard Sri.G.B.Nandish Gowda., learned coun