THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND GENERAL MANAGER vs SRI. ANJANAMURTHY A

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024





IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026


BEFORE

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

WRIT PETITION NO. 3819 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
AND GENERAL MANAGER
MSIL, HOUSE NO.36
M.S.I.L, CUNNINGHAM ROAD
BENGALURU-560 052

…PETITIONER






(BY SRI: B S GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE)


AND:

1. SRI. ANJANAMURTHY A
NO.25, SHOPPING STREET
KUMAR PARK WEST
BENGALURU-560 020

2. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
MAHITI SOUDHA
DEVRAJ URS ROAD
BANGALORE-560 001
REP BY ITS COMMISSIONER

3. THE FIRST APPELLATE OFFICER AND
MANAGING DIRECTOR, MSIL
CUNNINGHAM ROAD-560 052

…RESPONDENTS



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

(BY SRI: G B SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024



THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2023 IN CASE
NO.KA.MA.AA/695/APL/2023 ON THE FILE OF STATE
INFORMATION COMMISSION, AT BENGALURU A COPY OF
WHICH IS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-H.
THIS WRIT 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 challenging the order
dated 06.12.2023 passed by the State Information Commission
at Annexure-H imposing penalty of Rs.25,000/- payable by the
petitioner on the ground that there is a delay of 240 days in
furnishing the information to respondent No.1 - the RTI
applicant.
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that respondent
No.1 had filed an application under RTI Act on 26.05.2022
seeking the following information:
"1) Provide copy of the Government approval
for creating Director (Marketing) post in MSIL during the
calender year 2021-2022.

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024



2) Provide copy of the promotion order issued
by Managing Director for Director (Marketing) post in
the month of April 2022-2023."

3. Since the information sought by respondent No.1
was not within the hands of the petitioner herein, the petitioner
had called upon the concerned to provide the information by
inter office note dated 30.05.2022. The officer who was
required to furnish the information has made available the
same to the petitioner on 26.07.2022 and the petitioner has
forwarded the information to respondent No.1 on 28.07.2022
as per Annexure-E. Being dissatisfied with the information
furnished by the petitioner, respondent No.1 has filed an appeal
before the First Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by
respondent No.1 was rejected by the First Appellate Authority.
It is thereafter, respondent No.1 had approached respondent
No.2 - Commission under Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. The
Commission, at the time of conducting the proceedings had
issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner calling upon him to
show cause as to why a penalty of Rs.25,000/- shall not be
imposed for delay in furnishing the information.

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024



4. In response to the same, the petitioner has
submitted his reply on 18.10.2023. It is the contention of the
petitioner that in the reply to the show cause notice, the
petitioner has stated that the very same RTI applicant i.e.,
respondent No.1 herein has filed 62 applications under the RTI
Act between 25.04.2022 till 29.08.2022 and substantial
number of applications have been disposed of furnishing the
information sought by respondent No.1. Even in respect of the
application in question, the information has been furnished on
28.07.2022 itself. Therefore, there is no inordinate delay in
furnishing the information for imposition of penalty. It is the
assertion of the petitioner that none of the reasons assigned by
the petitioner in response to the show cause notice have been
considered by respondent No.2 - Commission while passing the
impugned order.
5. It is noticed that in the present petition, though
notice was issued to respondent No.1, despite service of notice,
he remained unrepresented.
6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 -
Commission submits that the Commission is justified in

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024



imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- noticing the delay of 240
days in furnishing the information. Therefore, no interference is
required to the impugned order.
7. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner,
so also, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and on
perusal of the writ petition papers, more particularly, the order
impugned, it is seen that the reply to the show cause notice
issued to the Commission has not been considered in proper
perspective. The reason assigned by the petitioner for the short
delay in furnishing the information, namely, the very same RTI
applicant i.e., respondent No.1 has filed 62 applications and
substantial number of applications have been considered and
information are furnished. The information sought in the
application, which is the subject matter of the present writ
petition is concerning an appointment of Director (Marketing) in
the year 2021-2022 and the said information does not pertain
to the services of respondent No.1, who was also an employee
of MSIL.
8. It is submitted at the Bar that respondent No.1 was
a Union leader in the establishment of MSIL. By looking to the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024



conduct of respondent No.1 in filing 62 applications within a
span of about 2 months, a reasonable inference could be drawn
that there is no bonafides in the conduct of respondent No.1 in
filing the application after the application by misusing the
provision of the RTI Act. The object of enactment of RTI Act is
for obtaining information from the public authority for valid and
genuine purpose. But now-a-days, it is seen the RTI Act is
being used to harass the Public Information Officers for
extraneous reasons with oblige motive.
9. On the overall consideration of the grounds urged
by the petitioner and on noticing the circumstances under
which the order impugned is passed, this Court is of the
considered view that there is no gross negligence or inordinate
delay in furnishing the information by the petitioner so as to
impose the penalty of Rs.25,000/-. Taking note of the facts
and circumstances of the present case and noticing filing of
repeated applications under the RTI Act by the very same
applicant before the very same petitioner, it is a fit case to set
aside the order of imposition of penalty.

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:59795
WP No. 3819 of 2024


CNR: KAHC010071632024



10. In the result, the following:
ORDER
allowed.
(i) The writ petition is
(ii) The order dated 06.12.2023 in Case
No.Ka.Ma.Aa/695/APL/2023 passed by respondent No.2 at
Annexure-H, insofar as directing the petitioner to pay the
penalty of Rs.25,000/- is set aside.


Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE






BGN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31