J.R. BALAKRISHNA Vs. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AND THE MANDYA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., REP. BY ITS INFORMATION OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER sought information vide application dated 18.12.2011, in matters relating to recruitment at the 3rd respondent -Bank. The PIO directed the 3rd respondent to provide the information to the petitioner. The Chief Executive Officer of the 3rd respondent informed the petitioner on 27.12.2011 to appear personally, identify the documents and collect the same. According to the 3rd respondent, petitioner did not appear for inspection, instead, filed the application alleging that the Public information Officer has not provided the information. Petitioner was again notified on 25.08.2012 to appear personally, inspect the documents and collect the information. Despite such instructions, the petitioner filed first appeal on 23.01.2012, under S. 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act), before the Asst. Registrar of Co -operative Societies and later filed second appeal under S. 19(3) of the Act, before the Karnataka Information Commission, in case No. KIC1750PTN2012. The Commission having noted the request for information contained in the communication dated 18.12.2011 relating to seven items with regard to the recruitment of candidates to the 3rd respondent prior to 2003 and also the communication of the PIO to the petitioner, to inspect the connected record on 27.02.2011, since the record is voluminous and having noticed the provision under S. 7(9) of the Act and being of the opinion that the information sought being voluminous, the compilation of which requires considerable resources of the public authority, held that the PIO was right in informing the petitioner to inspect the records. Finding that the opportunity provided to the petitioner to inspect the. records has not been utilized, the impugned action of the PIO was not found fault with and the appeal was dismissed, by granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the ARCS and PIO, Mandya, inspect the connected records and get the necessary information by paying the necessary fees, in terms of the Order dated 11.09.2012 as at Annexure -G. The petitioner, thereafter having submitted an application dated 16.11.2012 vide Annexure -H, in view of the communications vide Annexures -J and K, filed this writ petition to direct the 3rd respondent to consider the application of the petitioner dated 16.11.2012 vide Annexure -H and furnish all the information sought by him within a reasonable time.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned advocates on both sides and having perused the writ petition record, the order at Annexure -G dated 11.09.2012 having become final, in my view, the course open to the petitioner is to approach the ARCS and PIO, Mandya, inspect the connected records and collect the information by paying necessary fee. Petitioner has not acted in terms of the aforesaid Order. Instead, having submitted a fresh representation as at Annexure -H, the 2nd and 3rd respondents are justified in issuing the communications as at Annexures -J and K. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to be provided with the information in terms of the observations contained in the Order dated 11.09.2012 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission as at Annexure -G. In the result, writ petition is disposed of, permitting the petitioner to approach the ARCS and PIO, Mandya, inspect the connected record, identify the documents and collect the information by paying necessary fee. If the petitioner appears before the 2nd respondent, he shall give effect to the observation made in para 11 of the Order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission i.e., Annexure -G.