SRI PARAMESHA B R., vs KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

ND
DATED THIS THE 2 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026


BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

WRIT PETITION NO. 3769 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. PARAMESHA B.R
S/O SRI. RAJANNA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT
O/O ADLR, KARWAR
UTTARA KANNADA DISTRICT
WAS INCHARGE OF ADDITIONAL
DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS
SAKALESHWARA
HASSAN DISTRICT
…PETITIONER









(BY SRI. NAGARJUNA A.C, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. C.M. NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
ND
NO.203, 2 FLOOR
INFORMATION SOUDHA
D.DEVARAJ URS ROAD
VIDHANA SOUDHA
WEST GATE, BANGALORE-1
REP. BY CHAIRMAN

2.
SRI. K.J. PRAMOD
TH ND
NO.26, 5 CROSS, AGB 2 STAGE






Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA
M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BANGALORE-86
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE - [VC];
R2- SRI. K.V. PRAMOD, SERVED BUT UNREPRESENTED)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH / CALL
FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE IMPUGNED NOTICE IN CASE
NO.KAMAAAA/444/C.O.M/2023, PASSED BY THE R1, DTD
5.12.2023 ANNEXURE-A AND SET ASIDE IMPUGNED PENALTY
INITIATED BY THE R1 IN SO FAR AS IMPOSED THE FINE OF
RS.25,000/- TO THE PETITIONER AND DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO ALLOW THE PETITIONER TO DISCHARGE HIS
DUTY PROVIDED UNDER THE STATUS WITHOUT INTERFERING
HIS DUTIES.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA

ORAL ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court calling in question
st
the order dated 05.12.2023 passed by the 1 respondent-
State Information Commission imposing cost of
Rs.25,000/- against the petitioner on the ground that the
information sought by the respondent No.2 through
application dated 16.05.2023 was not furnished within the
specified time of 30 days from the date of submission of
the application.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


2. The claim of the petitioner is that in response to
the application dated 16.05.2023, the petitioner has
responded through the Communication dated 23.05.2023
furnishing some of the documents, however, declining to
furnish copy of the notice issued to the surveyor on the
ground that the said information amounts to personal
information of the third party and the same cannot be
furnished in view of provisions of Section 8(1)(j) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
“the Act” for short).
3. It is his submission that, despite forwarding of
the information as per Annexure-C dated 23.05.2023, the
respondent No.2 filed a complaint under Section 18(1) of
the Act, complaining that the information was not
furnished despite the application having been filed on
16.05.2023. The respondent No.1- State Information
Commission had issued a show cause notice to the
petitioner before passing the impugned order. In response
to it, the petitioner has submitted his reply on 02.12.2023

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


specifically contending that the information sought for by
the respondent No.2 has been furnished on 23.05.2023
itself and therefore, there is no violation of provisions of
Right to Information Act and there is no scope to impose
penalty on him and further requesting for closure of the
proceedings.
4. The respondent No.1- State Information
Commission rejected the cause shown by the petitioner in
response to the show cause notice, holding that the
petitioner has not produced any document to show that
the information stated to have been furnished has been
acknowledged by the respondent No.2-RTI applicant and
proceeded to pass the impugned order at Annexure-A
imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/-.
5. This Court on 09.10.2026 after hearing the
learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondent No.1 had directed the learned counsel for
the petitioner to produce the receipt acknowledgement for

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


having furnished the information to the respondent No.2
on 23.05.2023. In response to which, the learned counsel
for the petitioner has filed a memo producing the copy of
the extract of the dispatched register. On perusal of the
same, it is noticed that the registered article was booked
in the jurisdictional post office on 25.05.2025 and the
same is entered in the outward register.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also
produced the copies of the documents, which have been
forwarded to the respondent No.2-RTI applicant. All the
documents produced are official documents and there is
no reason to disbelieve the authenticity of the said
documents including the extract of the outward register.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1
submits that the ledger extract only shows the dispatch of
the postal article and it is not a proof of service of the
same. Accordingly, prays to pass appropriate orders.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


8. Though, the respondent No.2 is served with the
notice, however, remained unrepresented.
9. After having heard the learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent No.1
and on perusal of the writ petition papers, the impugned
order and the documents filed along with the memo today,
it is seen that the dates and events referred to supra are
not in dispute and it is all based on the records made
available in the writ petition. It is also not in dispute that
at an undisputed point in time i.e., on 25.05.2025, the
registered postal article was booked for dispatch with the
address of the respondent No.2. The said fact discloses
that in response to the application dated 16.05.2023,
some action was taken to furnish the information sought
by the respondent No.2.
10. Though, it cannot be concluded that the
registered article, which was dispatched on 25.05.2025
has reached the hands of the respondent No.2, however, it

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


cannot also be held that there is complete dereliction of
the duty on the part of the petitioner in not responding to
the application under the Right to Information Act.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a case
of complete dereliction of the duty on the part of the
petitioner in not responding to the application under the
Right to Information Act. The documents produced before
the Court shows that there are some efforts made by the
petitioner to respond to the application filed by the
respondent No.2. In the facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is the considered opinion of this Court that
it is not a case for imposition of penalty.
11. In that light, the exercise of power under
Section 18 of the Act by the respondent No.1-State
Information Commissioner to impose the penalty at
Rs.25,000/- is liable to be interfered with.
12. It is also noticed that despite service of notice
in the instant writ petition, there is no representation on

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:60861
WP No. 3769 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010056822024


behalf of the respondent No.2. If at all, the respondent
No.2 was serious in contesting the claim of the petitioner
as regards furnishing of the information, the respondent
No.2 would have appeared and defended the writ petition.
13. In the result:
allowed
(i) The writ petition is .
(ii) The order dated 05.12.2023 at
Annexure-A passed by the respondent No.1-
State Information Commissioner, by which, the
penalty of Rs.25,000/- was imposed against the
petitioner is quashed.
(iii) No order as to costs.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE


PB, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33