LAWS(KAR)-2018-2-27

THE COMMISSIONER Vs. STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

Decided On February 09, 2018
The Commissioner Appellant
V/S
STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Mahanagara Palike is before this Court assailing the orders dated 14-09-2009 and 19-01-2010 passed by Respondent No.1, impugned at Annexures-Q and T.

(2.) The second respondent who claims to be a RTI Act ivist had sought for particulars relating to the case pending before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by filing the application as at Annexure-B to the petition dated 19-11-2008. The documents at Annexures-D to F as also the communications dated 13-02-2009 and 18-03-2009 would disclose that the information as sought for with regard to the pending case has been furnished to Respondent No.2. Notwithstanding the same, Respondent No.2 had filed the complaint before Respondent No.1 which was considered and the orders impugned dated 14-09-2009 and 19-01-2010 has been passed. The consideration made therein by Respondent No.1 and the direction issued is of general nature, but not with regard to the very information that had been sought by Respondent No.2 and had been furnished to him.

(3.) A perusal of the same would disclose that Respondent No.1 through both the orders has directed the petitioners herein to bring out guidelines setting out the norms for the officers working at various levels in the BBMP including the officers in the Head of Legal Cell and also the Counsels who are on panel of the BBMP fixing their duties and responsibilities at various level within the time frame/line for providing adequate and quick response related to legal matters. Respondent No.1 also directed the Commissioner to issue suitable direction to all the concerned to maintain the prescribed register with appropriate columns to monitor the progress of the appeals and complaints and their disposals. In that regard, in the order dated 19-01-2010, it is further indicated that since such compliance has not been made, the petitioner herein is also losing many cases due to non- compliance and non-production of relevant records before the appellate authority/Courts.