N.G. Gowdaiah - Petitioner @HASH A.R.S. Kumar and another

A.S. Bopanna, J. - The petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 3-11-2012 in No. KIC 9495 PTN 2011 imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner.

The petitioner is appointed as the Public Information Officer of the Bangalore Development Authority. The first respondent herein made an application dated 16-8-2011 seeking certain particulars from the petitioner herein. The petitioner in response to the same issued a note dated 17-8-2011 with regard to the details that had been sought. Further on 17-9-2011 the petitioner informed the first respondent that he is required to inspect the records pertaining to tire National Public School and required copies of the information will be furnished by collecting the necessary fee depending on required documents. The first respondent did not choose to approach the petitioner, but instead approached the second respondent by filing a complaint against the petitioner. In that regard, a notice dated 11-4-2012 was issued to the petitioner. The petitioner through his reply dated 18-10-2012 sought to justify his action. Despite the same, the second respondent by the order impugned has imposed the penalty of Rs. 10,000/-. It is in that view, the petitioner has assailed the said order in the instant petition.

Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers.

The sequence of events as noticed above would disclose that the first respondent being aggrieved by the action of the petitioner in not furnishing the details has not filed an appeal as contemplated under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (''the Act'' for short). However, a complaint had been filed to the second respondent under Section 20 of the said Act and the same was dealt with by the second respondent in imposing the penalty.

Be that as it may, the explanation as put forth by the petitioner before the second respondent would disclose that the petitioner on taking note of the application filed by the first respondent has immediately taken steps to inform the first respondent to inspect the records and decide on the number of copies that would be required from the set of documents and in that regard, the fee to be paid. The proceedings would indicate that there can be no dispute to the fact that the first respondent had not approached the petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the second respondent would however contend that the second respondent was justified in the facts and circumstances inasmuch as there was no need for the petitioner to issue an endorsement to the first respondent calling upon him to inspect the Records when in the application the documents as required by the first respondent has been indicated in detail.

In the light of the said contention, a perusal of the application filed by the first respondent to the petitioner would disclose that the first respondent was seeking details relating to the Plot Allotment Letter and all relevant documents relating to the allotment and also the building approval. Further the details of the deviation, if any committed by the National Public School in the matter of construction was also sought and in addition, the ''no objection certificate'' obtained from different authorities was also required by the first respondent.

If that be the position, when all matters from the stage of allotment of the plot till the construction was put up by the said school was sought by the first respondent, certainly the Records would be voluminous and it was necessary for the first respondent to inspect the Records, identify such of those documents required and necessary fee that was required to be paid.

Therefore, in the present facts and circumstances, the petitioner was justified in issuing the endorsement. Despite the same, the second respondent without taking note of these aspects has mechanically imposed the penalty on the petitioner. Hence, the order impugned dated 3-11-2012 passed by the second respondent is not justified. The same is accordingly quashed.

The petition is accordingly disposed of.