SMT. B. C. BHARATHI vs KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 5 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.VIVEKANANDA
WRIT PETITION NO. 8235 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.C. BHARATHI
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
DEPUTY REVENUE OFFICER
B.B.M.P. GOVINDARAJANAGAR
DIVISION, PALIKE SOUDA
CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560 040
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. NAGESH VINAY S, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. AKASH V.T, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
ND
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT 2 FLOOR
MAHITHI SOUDHA
OPPOSITE TO WEST GATE-2 TO
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER
2. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY
AND CHIEF ENGINEER
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT
NORTH DIVISION, B.B.M.P
ND
JAYANAGAR 2 BLOCK
BANGALORE-560 011
Digitally signed by
PREMCHANDRA M R
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
3. SMT. GAYATHRI DEVI
C/O SMT KALAMMA
TH
NO 27, 11 CROSS, AGRAHARA
DASARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ANUP DEVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G.B, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN APPEAL
NO. ಕಮಾಅ/839/ಎ ಎಲ್/2023 DATED 28.11.2023 AT
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, 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 28.11.2023 at Annexure-A passed by the
Karnataka State Information Commission - respondent
No.1 herein by which the State Information Commission
has imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/- recoverable from out
of the salary of the petitioner.
2. The contention of the petitioner in the instant
writ petition is that the respondent No.3 had filed an
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
application under the Right to Information Act seeking
information on 09.04.2022. As on the date of the said
application, the Public Information Officer who was
required to furnish the information was one Sri Renuka
Prasad C. The information sought by the respondent No.3
was furnished on 30.01.2023 Sri Renuka Prasad C., was
transferred from the post of Assistant Revenue Officer and
also Public Information Officer on 30.01.2023. From the
month of January till April, 2023, Sri Nataraj T., was the
Assistant Revenue Officer, so also the Public Information
Officer. It is when Sri Nataraj T., was functioning as a
Public Information Officer, the respondent No.1-State
Information Commission issued notice to the said Public
Information Officer regarding non-furnishing of the
information within the stipulated time.
3. The petitioner was transferred to the post of
Assistant Revenue Officer, Govindarajanagar Sub-division
on 21.04.2023. It is during the said period, the State
Information Commission issued show cause notice to the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
petitioner calling upon him to show cause as to why
penalty of Rs.25,000/- shall not be levied for not
furnishing the information within the stipulated time. It is
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that due to inadvertence the show cause notice
was not responded to by the petitioner, however, much
prior to the same Sri Nataraj T., who was working as a
Public Information Officer had already informed the State
Information Commission that the documents sought by the
respondent No.3 are not available.
4. Taking note of the said circumstances, the
respondent No.1 – State Information Commission has
imposed cost of Rs.25,000/- against the petitioner. It is
the said order, which is under challenge in the present writ
petition. While entertaining the writ petition, this Court
passed an interim order staying the order passed by the
respondent No.1 on 25.03.2024.
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
5. On 30.10.2026 after hearing the learned
counsel for the petitioner, this Court directed the learned
counsel appearing for the respondent No.1-State
Information Commission to secure the records relating to
the imposition of penalty to ascertain as to whether before
imposition of penalty, the Commission was aware of the
fact that the information had already been furnished on
30.01.2023 and the said fact was informed by the
petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued by
the Commission.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.1 after securing the records submitted that
much prior to the grant of interim order in this writ
petition, the penalty of Rs.25,000/- had already been
deducted from out of the salary for the month of January,
2024. The said fact was brought to the notice of the
Commission by the petitioner herself, which has been
recorded in the proceedings dated 18.09.2024. In that
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
view of the matter, no interference is required in respect
of the impugned order is concerned.
7. From the above narrated facts, it is clear that
the petitioner was not the Public Information Officer as on
the date of the respondent No.3 filing the application
seeking information and the information had been
furnished by Sri Renuka Prasad C., on 30.01.2023 itself
and the proceeding conducted by the respondent No.1 is
only for imposition of penalty for delay in furnishing the
information.
8. The instant writ petition was filed on
04.03.2024 and the interim order was passed on
25.03.2024. By then, the order impugned has already
been given effect to and a sum of Rs.25,000/- was
deducted from out of the salary of the petitioner for the
month of January, 2024. Therefore, there was no occasion
for the petitioner to challenge the impugned order insofar
as imposition of penalty is concerned.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
9. At this stage, the learned counsel for the
petitioner expresses an apprehension that the fact of
imposition of penalty by the State Information Commission
might be entered in the service records of the petitioner
and it would have an impact on the career of the petitioner
in the service.
10. Having noticed the fact that the petitioner had
assumed the charge of the office of the Assistant Revenue
Officer, Govindarajanagar, only on 21.04.2023 and he was
not responsible for the delay in furnishing the information
sought by the respondent No.3, the request made by the
petitioner for an appropriate direction to the employer of
the petitioner not to make any entry in the service records
of the petitioner regarding the imposition of penalty by the
respondent No.1 is reasonable and required to be acceded.
11. In the circumstances, the prayer of the
petitioner for quashing of the impugned order at
Annexure-A is rejected, however, it is observed that the
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:61606
WP No. 8235 of 2024
CNR: KAHC010140792024
fact of imposition of cost of Rs.25,000/- by the respondent
No.1 against the petitioner shall not be entered in the
service records of the petitioner. If the said fact for any
reason has already been entered in the service records,
the same shall be deleted taking note of the observation
made in this order. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(T.P.VIVEKANANDA)
JUDGE
PB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4