BANGALORE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED, SHREERAM GOWDA AND SHIVASHARANA Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND SRI S. NARESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN these cases, the petitioners have called in question the validity of the order at Annexure 'G' dated 18.4.2012 passed by the first respondent and also for quashing of the order at Annexures 'C' and 'D' and to terminate the proceedings initiated on the basis of the complaints filed by the second respondent as per Annexure 'B'. The second respondent filed five (5) applications under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Act' for short) before the Public Information Officer of the 1st petitioner seeking the details of the first petitioner -company from various 'Government Offices including the State Government.

(2.) THE contention of the petitioners is that in response to the said applications, its Officers have with utmost due diligence provided the information by collecting the same from other Departments and Organizations. Having received all the information available at the office of the petitioners, the second respondent went on to file five complaints as per Annexure 'B' on 22.6.2010 under Section 18(1) of the Act before the Karnataka Information Commission. In pursuance of the same, the first respondent without having any power under the Act to do so, directed the petitioners to allow the second respondent to enter the premises of the first petitioner -company and peruse the details by orders dated 11.4.2011 and 3.8.2011. The first respondent has issued a show cause notice to the officers of the first petitioner vide order dated 30.11.2011 seeking explanation as to why penalty should not be imposed on them. They have filed their response to the notices as per Annexure 'F' pointing out that there has been compliance by providing information. They have further contended that second and third respondents were not the persons incharge of the offices, when the alleged delay took place and therefore, question of imposing any penalty does not arise. However, the first respondent has passed the order dated 18.4.2012 imposing penalty on petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 in W.P. Nos. 19441/2012 and 22981 to 22982/2012 and the petitioner in W.P. Nos. 24210/2012 and 40995 to 40998/2012 and also postponing the hearing to 27.7.2012.

(3.) I have heard Sri S. Sriranga, learned Counsel for the petitioners, Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent and Sri S. Naresh Kumar, the second respondent, party -in -person.