Sri C G Raikar v. The Karnataka Information Commission

ORDER In view of the above observations, the Commission directs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps, Kandaya Bhavan, Bangalore, under section 19(8)(a) of RTI Act, 2005, to conduct a detailed investigation to unearth the truth and to initiate measures to rectify the fraudulent transactions within the scope of Registration Act and to initiate disciplinary action against all concerned, who have worked prior to 24.07.2018, and who are involved for creation of fraudulent entries and also to explore the possibility of referring the books for verification of Forensic department to ascertain the Age of Ink, which was used in the fictitious entries made in the Registration Book and to submit a compliance report to the Commission. The Commission also directs Shri Shankare Gowda, First Appellate Authority and District Registrar, Jayanagar District Office, 3rd Floor, Bank of India Building, 10% B Main Road, 4 Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, under section 19(8)(a) of RTI Act, 2005, to file a criminal case against all concerned who have tried to grab the property of a genuine person, by tampering, making fraudulent transactions in the books of the Department under the provision of Karnataka State Public Record Act, 2010 and Karnataka State Public Record Rules, 2013 and to produce a copy of FIR to the Commission.

The Commission directs the Additional Director General of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Khanija Bhavan, Bangalore under section 19(8)(a) of RTI Act, 2005, to take up the case for further investigation and to initiate appropriate legal action against the concerned Officials who have worked prior to 24.07.2018 and who are involved in tampering the documents and submit a compliance report to the Commission during the next date of hearing The case is adjourned to 25.09.2019 at 11A.M."

¶12Perusal of the aforesaid order indicate that respondent No.1-Commission, has taken upon itself the responsibility of enquiring, determining and adjudicating the issue with regard to safeguard of the public records on the premise that the registration department is the custodian of the property title records of the public. He seemed to have found justification in allegations of manipulation and tampering the documents as made by private respondent No.5. This has led him to pass the order directing the Additional Director General of Police to investigate the matter and take action against all the officers who worked prior to 24.07.2018. This power has been purportedly exercised under Section 19(8)(a) of the Act.

¶13Appropriate to refer to Section 18 and 19(8)(a) of the Act. " 18. Powers and functions of Commission.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, it shall be the duty of the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person,.

(a)who has been unable to submit a request to a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, either by reason that no such officer has been appointed under this Act, or because the Central Assistant Public Information Officer or State Assistant Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has refused to accept his or her application for information or appeal under this Act for forwarding the same to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer or Senior Officer specified in sub-section (1) of section 19 or the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be;

(b)who has been refused access to any information requested under this Act;

(c)who has not been given a response to a request for information or access to information within the time limit specified under this Act;

(d)who has been required to pay an amount of fee which he or she considers unreasonable;

(e)who believes that he or she has been given incomplete, misleading or false information under this Act;and

(f)in respect of any other matter relating to requesting or obtaining access to records under this Act.

(2)Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof.

(3)The Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, shall, while inquiring into any matter under this section, have the same powers as are vested in a civil Court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of the following matters, namely:

(a)summoning and enforcing the attendance of persons and compel them to give oral or written evidence on oath and to produce the documents or things;

(b)requiring the discovery and inspection of documents;

(c)receiving evidence on affidavit;

(d)requisitioning any public record or copies thereof from any Court or office;

(e)issuing summons for examination of witnesses or documents; and

(f)any other matter which may be prescribed.

(4)Notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other Act of Parliament or State Legislature, as the case may be, the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, may, during the inquiry of any complaint under this Act, examine any record to which this Act applies which is under the control of the public authority, and no such record may be withheld from it on any grounds. Section 19(8)(a) in The Right to Information Act, 2005 19 (8) In its decision, the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, has the power to—

(a) require the public authority to take any such steps as may be necessary to secure compliance with the provisions of this Act, including—

(i) by providing access to information, if so requested, in a particular form;

(ii) by appointing a Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be;

(iii) by publishing certain information or categories of information;

(iv) by making necessary changes to its practices in relation to the maintenance, management and destruction of records;

(v) by enhancing the provision of training on the right to information for its officials;

(vi) by providing it with an annual report in compliance with clause

(b) of sub-section (i) of section 4;"

¶14Holistic reading of the aforesaid provision providing for the powers and functions of Commission as enumerated under Section 18 indicate that it confines and revolves around only with regard to furnishing or refusal to furnish the information sought for. The power of respondent No.1-Commission under Section 19(8)(a) is in furtherance to the said power and functions entrusted. The aforesaid

provisions do not remotely suggest any power being vested with respondent No.1-Commission to take up the responsibility of ensuring maintenance of the public records and to adjudicate upon the issue involving any dispute, manipulation, fabrication of the public records.

¶15The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India v/s Namit Sharma reported in (2013) 10 SCC 359 at paragraph Nos.24 and 25 has held as under: "24. It will be clear from the plain and simple language of Sections 18, 19 and 20 of the Act that, under Section 18 the Information Commission has the power and function to receive and inquire into a complaint from any person who is not able to secure information from a public authority; under Section 19 it decides appeals against the decisions of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer relating to information sought by a person; and under Section 20 it can impose a penalty only for the purpose of ensuring that the correct information is furnished to a person seeking information from a public authority. Hence, the functions of the Information Commissions are limited to ensuring that a person who has sought information from a public authority in accordance with his right to information conferred under Section 3 of the Act is not denied such information except in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

¶25Section 2(j) defines "right to information" conferred on all citizens under Section 3 of the Act to mean the right to information accessible under the Act, "which is held by or under the control of any public authority". While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."

¶16Thus, from the facts narrated above and the provisions of law and the law enumerated by the Apex Court,

respondent No.1-Commission could not have passed the impugned order as he is vested only with the administrative power and he, definitely has no power to pass order, touching upon the subject as taken note of by him in his order at paragraph Nos. 7, 8 extracted above.

¶17Accordingly, the following: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) Order dated

16.08.2019 passed by respondent No.1-Commission produced at Annexure-F is quashed. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

e -e1e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40069 WP(No.(43808(of(2019 CNR:(KAHC010289162019 IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( THDATED(THIS(THE(30 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026( BEFORE( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(M.G.S.(KAMAL( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(43808(OF(2019((GM-RES) BETWEEN:( SRI,C,G,RAIKAR,, S/O,LATE,G,R,RAIKAR, AGED,ABOUT,56,YEARS, WORKING,AS,SENIOR,SUB,REGISTRAR, OFFICE,OF,THE,SENIOR,SUB,REGISTRAR, CHAMARAJAPET, BANGALORE,-,560,018, …PETITIONER, (BY,SRI.,SATISH,K.,,ADVOCATE), AND: 1., THE,KARNATAKA,INFORMATION,COMMISSION, Digitally signedtiby REPRESENTED,BY,ITS,SECRETARY, ANNAPURNA ST G MAHITI,SOUDHA,,NO.104,,1 ,FLOOR, Location:0High DEVARAJ,URS,ROAD,,, Courttiof Karnataka BEHIND,K,P,S,C,OFFICE,PREMISES, OPPOSITE,TO,VIDHANA,SOUDHA,, WEST,GATE-2, BENGALURU,-,560,001, 2., THE,INSPECTOR,GENERAL,OF,REGISTRATION,AND,, COMMISSIONER,FOR,STAMPS, TH8 ,FLOOR,,KANDAYA,BHAVAN, K,G,ROAD, BANGALORE,-,560,009, e -e2e-eeeee e e ((((((((((((HC-KAR NC:(2026:KHC:40069 WP(No.(43808(of(2019 CNR:(KAHC010289162019 3., THE,DISTRICT,REGISTRAR, RD THNO.4,,3 ,FLOOR,,10 ,A,MAIN,ROAD, THJAYANAGAR,4 ,BLOCK, BANGALORE,-,560,011, 4., THE,ADDITIONAL,DIRECTOR,GENERAL,OF,POLICE, ANTI-CORRUPTION,BUREAU, KHANIJA,BHAVAN,,RACE,COURSE,ROAD, BANGALORE,-,560,001, 5., SRI,A,VASIGARAN, FATHERS,NAME,NOT,KNOWN,TO,THE,PETITIONER, MAJOR, NO.11A,,SHANTHI,ILLAM, 2ND,CROSS,,B,BELT,,SERVICE,STATION,ROAD, RAMAMURTHY,NAGAR, BANGALORE,-,560,016, …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI.,RAJASHEKHAR,K.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1, ,,,,,,SRI.,MAHANTESH,SHETTAR,,AGA,FOR,R2,AND,R3, ,,,,,,SRI.,B.B.,PATIL,,SPL.,COUNSEL,FOR,R4, ,,,,,,SRI.,SHAMANTH,NAIK,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5), , THIS, W.P., IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION,OF,INDIA,PRAYING,TO,CALL,FOR,RECORDS, FROM, THE, R-1, PERTAINING, TO, THE, IMPUGNED, ORDER, DATED,16.08.2019,(ANNX-F),QUASH,THE,IMPUGNED,ORDER, DATED, 16.08.2019, (ANNX-F), IN, SO, FAR, AS, THE, PETIIOTNER,IS,CONCERNED., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court, being aggrieved by the order dated 16.08.2019, produced at Annexure-F, passed by respondent No.1–Commission. By the said order, respondent No.1–Commission, in exercise of its powers under Section 19(8)(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, "the Act"), directed the Additional Director General of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Khanija Bhavan, Bangalore to investigate and initiate proceedings against the officials who had served in the Office of the Sub- Registrar, Bommanahalli, prior to 24.07.2018 and were involved in tampering with the records. Respondent No.1– Commission has further directed for submission of a compliance report on or before 25.09.2019. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court through the record submits that, the petitioner was working as Senior Sub-Registrar of Bommanahalli, between 30.10.2015 to 31.07.2018. Private respondent No.5 had filed an application on 05.10.2018, seeking certified copies of certain documents. By the time when the said application was made, petitioner was no more in- charge of the said office. But one Sri.B.Shivakumar - Sub- Registrar had assumed the office. That though the respondent No.5 was furnished with the information sought far, being dissatisfied, he had preferred an appeal before respondent No.3, alleging he having been furnished with the wrong document. Respondent No.3, after conducting the proceedings and hearing the parties, by Order dated 19.12.2018 held that the information as sought for by respondent No. 5 was furnished, and that if respondent No. 5 had any grievance with regard to the said information, he had to have the recourse before the competent forum. 3. Respondent No.5, being further aggrieved preferred second appeal before respondent No.1, who by the impugned order has allowed the appeal with the direction as noted above. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the tenor and n