PIO Can't Be Compelled To Furnish Information If RTI Application Doesn't Contain Particulars Of Information Sought: Karnataka High Court

A single judge bench of Jyoti Mulimani said “Given the increase of applications, it’s high time the Commission addresses the issue properly and in a right perspective.”

It issued the following guidelines:

The Commission should look into the application very minutely and then proceed further in the matter.

The Commission should focus on the important facts.

It should make sure that the application must and should contain the particulars of all the details of the information which is sought.

The application should be written in a formal style and see that the use of passives to be less direct and more formal.

The Commission has to make a satisfactory test of the contents of the application. If the application does not contain the particulars, then the Commission should reject the application and the Public Officials should not be compelled to furnish the information.

The bench said “My endeavor in this order is to ensure that the Commission shall apply its mind before it entertains the application.”

The directions came while allowing a petition filed by Dr. KN Anuradha, Deputy Secretary to Department of Urban Development. The petitioner had challenged the order of the Commission directing her to pay a penalty of Rs.20,000, apart from issuing show cause notice.

Complainant HT Giriyappa had made an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act seeking certain information regarding encroachment of gunduthopu, tank bund, halla kharab in respect of Haluvagilu Village and Tharemaradapalya Becharak Village of Kunigal Taluk. The case travelled up to the High Court alleging that the petitioner did not furnish the opinion within time prescribed under RTI Act.

The petitioner contended that the application is very vague and no specific particulars are sought in the application. Hence, the proceedings initiated by the Commission and imposition of penalty is unsustainable in law.

The Commission defended the order saying the Public Information Officer did not furnish the information as sought by the applicant. Hence, taking note of the matter in issue, the Commission is justified in imposing a penalty and accordingly passed the order.

On going through the application, the bench observed, “Except seeking information regarding encroachment of gunduthopu, tank bund, halla kharab in respect of Haluvagilu Village and Tharemaradapalya Becharak Village of Kunigal Taluk, no particulars regarding survey numbers are mentioned and there is no specific particulars about the land wherein the encroachment has taken place. Furthermore, the writ paper records depicts that information sought by the applicant was already furnished to the applicant and the he has acknowledged the same.”

Thus it held “The Commission has exceeded its power by adopting the improper procedure as well as by going wrong on a matter of substance.”

It added “In my opinion, the Commission has erred in imposing a penalty on the petitioner. In these circumstances, the orders dated:24.04.2015 and 29.07.2015 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission are liable to be quashed.”

Case title: DR. K.N.Anuradha And Karnataka State Information Commission & Others

Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 13791 OF 2016

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

Date of Order: 22-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate B K Manjunath for petitioner

Advocate G.B.Sharath Gowda for R1.

Advocate V.Shivareddy for R2, R4 & R6.