G BASAVARAJU Vs. ARUNDATHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition has been filed under Ss. 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 ('the Act' for short) to initiate contempt proceeding against the accused for non-implementation of an order dated 5-12-2007 passed by Karnataka Information Commission ('commission' for short) in case No. KIC/ 2860/com/2007 and to direct the accused, to implement the said order.

(2.) TO appreciate the grievance raised in this petition, few relevant facts may be noted: complainant was a member of Ananda Cooperative Bank Limited, Bassaveshwaranagar, havanur Circle, Bangalore-79. Accused are the President and Secretary of the said Bank. Complainant had filed an application dated 17-7-2007 to the second accused under Ss. 5 (1), 5 (2) and 19 (1) of The Right to Information Act, 2005 ('rti Act' for short) requesting to furnish, a copy of the letter dated 23-12-2006 addressed to the Bangalore Water supply and Sanitary Board and copies of documents such as, T. A. , D. A. and Log Book extract and payment made to the first accused. Subsequently, he filed a complaint before the commission against the second accused under S. 18 (1) of the RTI Act, for a direction to furnish copies of the aforenoticed records. The commission after inquiry in respect thereof, has passed an order dated 5-12-2007 directing the respondent (accused No. 2 herein) to furnish the relevant information on item No. 1 and the information available on the record in respect of item No. 2 to the complainant, free of cost, within 15 days. Complainant submitted a copy of the said order to the accused, along with his representation dated 20-12-2007, seeking compliance. In response thereto, the second accused sent a communication dated 20-12-2007 to the effect that, it has been decided to present appeal before the appellate authority. Complainant submitted a further representation dated 3-1-2008 seeking compliance, which having not been done, alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 5-12-2007 passed by the Commission and contending that, to protect the status, dignity, prestige and majesty of the Court, this petition has been filed.

(3.) WE have heard Sri H. K. Kenchegowda, learned counsel for the complainant, who contended that, the Commission stands on the same footing as that of a subordinate Court, the disobedience complained of, falls within the definition of the S. 2 (b) of the Act and therefore this Court has the power to take cognizance of the complaint alleged against the accused and committed by them. He contended that, the provisions of S. 20 of the RTI act is not efficacious in the matter of enforcement of the Commission order dated 5-12-2007 and the delay would defeat the very object of the Commission in passing the order and hence the accused should be punished for the act of committing contempt, with a further direction to implement the order without any delay.