N NARASIMHAIAH Vs. A R S KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was serving as an Assistant Commissioner of Police, Halasuru Sub-Division, Bangalore, and was designated as 'Public Information Officer' under the Right to Information Act, 2005, ('RTI Act' for short). The second respondent made an application under the 'RTI Act' on 22.09.2011 seeking certain information. The information sought for is as follows:

(2.) Since the information was not furnished to the second respondent, the second respondent approached the Karnataka Information Commission by filing a complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act. On 07.04.2012, notice was issued by the Under Secretary to the Karnataka Information Commission, calling upon the petitioner to explain as to why action should not be initiated under Section 20 of the RTI Act. The petitioner seems to have explained to the Commission that within three days from the date of the application, the petitioner called upon the concerned Police Inspectors to furnish the required information since the information sought pertained to various Police Stations.

(3.) It was submitted by the learned Counsel representing the petitioner, that since the information sought was very voluminous and pertaining to various Police Stations, there was delay in furnishing the information. The Chief Information Commissioner, after hearing the petitioner, passed an order dated 28.05.2012 stating that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chief Information Commissioner & Another. Vs. State of Manipur & Another., (2012) AIR SC 864, the Commission cannot treat the complaint filed under Section 18 of the RTI Act, sitting as an appellate authority. However, the Commissioner called upon the petitioner to explain as to why penalty should not be imposed as contemplated under Section 20 of the RTI Act, since the petitioner as the Public Information Officer, failed to furnish information within the stipulated period. Thereafter, on hearing the petitioner, another order dated 04.09.2012 was passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner levying penalty of Rs. 10,000/- on the petitioner for failing to furnish information within the stipulated period. Aggrieved, the petitioner, is before this Court challenging the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner.