LAWS(KAR)-2010-10-42

A NAGABHUSHANAM Vs. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

Decided On October 23, 2010
A.NAGABHUSHANAM Appellant
V/S
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER herein is impugning the order dated 06.11.2009 passed in Nos.KIC/ 8551 & 8553/COM/2008.

(2.) THE admitted facts of the case are as under : Second respondent herein submitted application to the office of Health Inspector, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for grant of trade license to start a Non Vegetarian Restaurant in the premises situated within the limits of Division No.27 of B.B.M.P. THE petitioner herein who was Senior Health Inspector of Division No.27, issued an endorsement dated 05.09.2008 calling upon 2nd respondent to furnish additional three documents to consider his application for grant of license. To the said endorsement a reply was sent by 2nd respondent on 24.09.2008 stating that the building in which he intend to start the business being a new building, was not assessed to tax, and was not entered in the katha register. THErefore B.B.M.P., is not is suing the said documents. Second respondent also contended even otherwise the said documents are not required to be furnished along with the application under Suvarna Arogya Paravanige, 2007.

(3.) THEREAFTER the first respondent herein issued notice to petitioner to his office address. Admittedly the petitioner is a Public Servant. Notice sent to a Public Servant to their office address in normal course cannot come back undelivered unless the intention of the Officer is otherwise. Strangely in this case, notice has come back unserved. THEREAFTER the first respondent left with no other option, after re- ascertaining the address of petitioner, which is the same address, to which earlier notice was addressed, sent communication to petitioner through the Medical Officer (Health), Jagjivanramnagar, with a direction to serve the notice on the petitioner herein. It is seen that after taking extreme step of getting notice served to him through his Superior Officer, petitioner herein reluctantly appeared before first respondent on 06.11.2009 and shamelessly admitted that he is in possession of the entire file pertaining to applications regarding grant of license to second respondent for running his restaurant business.