SRI SHIVAKUMAR C L vs THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
®
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 15 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 15040 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR C.L.,
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,
WORKING AS THE SECRETARY,
THE BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY,
T.CHOWDAIAH ROAD,
KUMARA PARK WEST,
BANGALORE - 560 020.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MURUGESH V. CHARATI., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION,
ROOM NO.002, GROUND FLOOR,
MAHITHI SOUDHA,
DR. DEVARAJA URS ROAD,
OPPOSITE VIDHANASOUDHA WEST GATE-02,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2.
SRI. A. SURESH CHANDRA BABU,
FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
TO THE PETITIONER,
AGE MAJOR,
ST
R/O NO.273, 1 FLOOR,
RAM IYENGAR ROAD,
Digitally signed
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
V.V. PURAM,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 01.01.2026 PASSED BY THE R-1 IN NO.KAMAAA
21950 APL 2023 WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNX-
G TO THE WP AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
"i) Set aside the order dated 01.01.2026 passed by
the respondent No.1 in No. KaMaaAa 21950 APL
2023 which is produced and marked as Annexure-G
to the writ petition;
ii) Issue a writ of mandamus directing the
respondent to consider the representation of the
petitioner dated 26.03.2026 which is produced and
marked as Annexure-J to the writ petition; and
iii) Issue any other orders or directions as deemed fit
in the circumstances of the case.
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
2. Respondent No. 2 submitted an application seeking
certain information on 06.02.2023. As the requested
information was not furnished within the prescribed
period, Respondent No. 2 preferred a first appeal on
09.03.2023. Certain steps were thereafter taken on
05.05.2023 by the predecessors of the petitioner.
The petitioner came to be appointed as Secretary,
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), and
consequently as the First Appellate Authority, by
order dated 07.05.2025 and assumed charge on
08.05.2025.
3. Since no order had been passed on the first appeal
pending from 09.03.2023, Respondent No. 2
preferred a second appeal before the Karnataka
Information Commission (KIC), Respondent No. 1
herein. Proceedings in the second appeal were
conducted on 08.07.2025, 12.08.2025 and
05.11.2025. Despite repeated opportunities, neither
was there any representation on behalf of the
respondent authority nor were any effective steps
taken to furnish the information sought by the
applicant.
4. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the
Karnataka Information Commission, by order dated
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
01.01.2026, passed in the presence of the applicant
and in the absence of the respondent authority,
imposed a penalty of ₹25,000/- and directed that the
information and documents sought by the applicant
be furnished forthwith.
5. Thereafter, when the matter was taken up on
10.02.2026, the Commission, noticing continued
non-representation on behalf of the respondent
authority and non-compliance with its earlier
directions, directed the concerned authorities to
show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings should
not be initiated. Aggrieved by the orders dated
01.01.2026 and 10.02.2026, the petitioner has
approached this Court.
6. Sri Murugesh V. Charati, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner was
transferred and posted as Secretary, BDA on
07.05.2025 and assumed charge on 08.05.2025. It
was contended that the RTI application had been
filed on 06.02.2023 and the first appeal had been
preferred on 09.03.2023, much prior to the
petitioner's assumption of office. According to the
learned counsel, all actions, omissions and decisions
relating to the RTI proceedings during the said period
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
were attributable exclusively to the petitioner's
predecessors. Therefore, it was submitted that the
petitioner could not be made personally liable for
defaults that had occurred before he entered office.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner
had, by communication dated 12.03.2026, instructed
the Deputy Secretary concerned to furnish the
information sought by Respondent No. 2 and had
thereby demonstrated his intention to comply with
the requirements of the Right to Information Act,
2005. On this basis, it was contended that the
imposition of penalty and the consequential direction
to initiate disciplinary proceedings were wholly
unwarranted and liable to be interfered with.
8. I am unable to accept the aforesaid submissions.
9. It is no doubt true that the petitioner was not holding
the office of Secretary, BDA or functioning as the
First Appellate Authority when the original RTI
application was filed or when the first appeal came to
be preferred in March 2023. Equally, it may not be
permissible to hold the petitioner personally
accountable for every omission or lapse committed
by his predecessors prior to 08.05.2025. However,
the issue in the present case does not concern
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
liability for the period preceding the petitioner's
assumption of office alone. The material on record
discloses a continuing default which persisted even
after the petitioner assumed charge and became
statutorily responsible for the discharge of the
functions attached to the office.
10. The office of the First Appellate Authority under the
Right to Information Act is not a personal office but a
statutory office. The obligations attached thereto
travel with the office and not with the individual
incumbent. Once the petitioner assumed charge as
Secretary, BDA and consequently as the First
Appellate Authority on 08.05.2025, he became
responsible for all pending matters requiring
attention within the jurisdiction of that office,
including the appeal preferred by Respondent No. 2.
11. A public servant assuming charge of a statutory
office cannot ignore pending proceedings merely
because they originated during the tenure of his
predecessor. Acceptance of such a contention would
result in administrative paralysis and would enable
statutory obligations to be indefinitely postponed by
the simple expedient of transfer of officers, a
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
consequence wholly contrary to the object and
purpose of the Right to Information Act.
12. The record indicates that after the petitioner
assumed charge, proceedings were conducted before
the Karnataka Information Commission on
08.07.2025, 12.08.2025 and 05.11.2025. Despite
being the authority concerned and despite adequate
opportunity having been afforded, there was no
representation on behalf of the petitioner before the
Commission on any of the aforesaid dates. The
matter was thereafter considered by the Commission
on 01.01.2026, resulting in the imposition of penalty
and issuance of directions for furnishing information.
Even thereafter, when the matter was again listed on
10.02.2026, there was no appearance on behalf of
the petitioner. Thus, the conduct complained of is not
confined to a historical default inherited from
predecessors; rather, it encompasses a series of
omissions committed during the petitioner's own
tenure.
13. The significance of these omissions cannot be
understated. The Karnataka Information Commission
is a statutory and quasi-judicial authority constituted
under the provisions of the Right to Information Act.
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
Orders, notices and proceedings before the
Commission are not mere administrative
communications that may be ignored at the
discretion of public authorities. The efficacy of the
statutory framework established under the Act
depends substantially upon the cooperation of Public
Information Officers and First Appellate Authorities
with the Commission. Non-participation in
proceedings before the Commission strikes at the
very foundation of the mechanism created by
Parliament for ensuring transparency and
accountability in public administration.
14. The conduct of the petitioner demonstrates not
merely a delay in compliance but a complete absence
of diligence in attending to the matter. Had the
petitioner entered appearance before the
Commission, explained the circumstances under
which the matter had remained pending, sought
reasonable time for compliance, or demonstrated
bona fide efforts to secure and furnish the
information, the matter might have stood on an
entirely different footing. However, the record
discloses none of these circumstances. On the
contrary, there was continuous inaction despite
repeated opportunities.
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
15. Another significant circumstance which cannot be
ignored is that the first appeal had remained
undisposed of from 09.03.2023. Even after the
petitioner assumed charge on 08.05.2025, no order
came to be passed on the appeal for the remainder
of the year. The statutory obligation to consider and
dispose of the appeal continued to subsist. Yet no
material has been placed before this Court to indicate
that the petitioner undertook any exercise to
examine the records, call for a report, ascertain the
status of the information sought, or otherwise
discharge the obligations cast upon him as the First
Appellate Authority. The prolonged silence and
inaction on the part of the petitioner inevitably
compelled the Commission to intervene and pass the
order dated 01.01.2026.
16. The reliance placed upon the communication dated
12.03.2026 is equally misconceived. The said
communication was issued more than two months
after the Commission had imposed the penalty and
directed compliance. A step taken after the
imposition of penalty cannot retrospectively erase
months of inaction or cure an established default.
Compliance undertaken only after coercive orders are
passed does not render such orders illegal nor does it
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
extinguish the consequences of prior non-
compliance. If such a proposition were to be
accepted, every delinquent public authority could
avoid statutory consequences merely by belatedly
initiating compliance after adverse orders are
passed.
17. The timing of the communication assumes particular
significance. If the petitioner was genuinely diligent
in discharging his statutory obligations, there is no
explanation as to why similar directions were not
issued immediately upon his assumption of office, or
at the very least after receipt of notices from the
Commission. The absence of any such
contemporaneous action renders the subsequent
communication of little evidentiary value. It appears
to be a step taken only after the Commission had
exercised its statutory powers and after the
petitioner had been visited with adverse
consequences. Such post facto action cannot be
treated as a mitigating circumstance sufficient to
invalidate the impugned orders.
18. In the circumstances, the conclusion reached by the
Karnataka Information Commission cannot be said to
be arbitrary, unreasonable or disproportionate. The
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
Commission was confronted with a matter in which a
statutory appeal had remained unattended for an
inordinately long period, repeated opportunities had
gone unutilized, notices had not elicited any effective
response, and the information sought under the Act
had not been furnished despite the passage of
considerable time. The exercise of jurisdiction by the
Commission in imposing penalty and directing
initiation of disciplinary proceedings was therefore
fully justified on the facts of the case.
19. The conduct displayed in the present matter deserves
serious disapproval. Public authorities functioning
under the Right to Information Act occupy a position
of trust and are expected to facilitate access to
information rather than obstruct it through
indifference or inaction. Failure to participate in
proceedings before the Commission and failure to
discharge statutory obligations undermine the
legislative intent of promoting transparency and
accountability in governance. Such conduct cannot
be lightly condoned, lest it dilute the effectiveness of
the statutory regime established under the Act.
20. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no illegality,
infirmity or procedural impropriety in the orders
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:29085
WP No. 15040 of 2026
HC-KAR
passed by the Karnataka Information Commission.
The writ petition is accordingly liable to be
dismissed . It is, however, clarified that dismissal of
the present petition shall not preclude the competent
authorities from examining the role of the petitioner's
predecessors and taking such action as may be
permissible in law in respect of the period during
which the appeal remained unattended prior to the
petitioner assuming charge on 08.05.2025.
21. I.A.No.1 of 2026 is allowed.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
MKM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 68