(BY SRI. P.N.NANJA REDDY., ADVOCATE) v. R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Key paragraphs
- Para 66. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to pay penalty of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021 Thousand only) within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/-…
Judgment
SRI SRINIVASAIAH S/O RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, W/AS SECRETARY, HESARGHATTA GRAM PANCHAYATH, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 088. (BY SRI. P.N.NANJA REDDY., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka AND:
THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, INFORMATION SOUDHA, DEVRAJ URS ROAD, VIDHANA SOUDHA, WEST GATE, BENGALURU-560 001.
PRADEEP KUMAR.A MAJOR IN AGE, R/AT NO.338, KASAGHATTAPURA, JANATA COLONY, 5TH CROSS, SILVEPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 088. (BY SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.P.Nanja Reddy., counsel for the petitioner and Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., counsel for respondent No.1 have appeared in person.
2. Notice respondents was ordered on
27.08.2021. A perusal of the office note depicts that respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented. He has neither engaged the services of an advocate nor conducted the case as a party in person.
The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 13.11.2020 passed by the first respondent in No.KIC 4675 APL 2019 vide Annexure-J.
Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care.
The second respondent Pradeep Kumar.A had sought certain information. It appears that the petitioner - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021 Srinivasaiah had failed to furnish the information well in time. Hence, the second respondent had filed an appeal before the first respondent - the Karnataka State Information Commission. The first respondent vide order dated 13.11.2020 passed the order and imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) on the petitioner for furnishing the information belatedly. The Secretary of the Panchayath has assailed the order of the first respondent in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set-out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition. It is not in dispute that the information sought by the second respondent was furnished belatedly. Taking note of the material on record, the first respondent imposed penalty of Rs.10,000/-. No doubt under the provisions of the Act, the Karnataka State Information Commission has power to impose penalty. However, in my view, the imposition of penalty of Rs.10,000/- is exorbitant. Hence, this Court deems it proper to reduce the penalty to Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand only).
Operative part
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. The petitioner is directed to pay penalty of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:1781 WP No. 1962 of 2021 Thousand only) within four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of this order. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 67
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.