Karnataka High Court
A S Mallikarjunaswamy vs State Information Commissioner on 22 August, 2023
Bench: Krishna S.Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:29928
WP No. 23695 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO. 23695 OF 2022 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
A S MALLIKARJUNASWAMY,
S/O LATE S SIDDAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
LECTURER IN PHYSICS,
MARIMALLAPPAS PU COLLGE,
SEETHA VILASA ROAD,
K R MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 004.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. A S MALLIKARJUNASWAMY-PARTY IN PERSON)
AND:
1. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
MAHITI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
Digitally signed OPPOSITE TO VIDHAN SOUDHA, WEST GATE. 2,
by SHARADA
VANI B BENGALURU 560 001.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. THE DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERISITY EDUCATION,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU 560 012.
3. THE JOINTS DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU 560 112.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION,
MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU 570 004.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:29928
WP No. 23695 of 2022
5. THE PRINCIPAL,
MARIMALLAPAS P. U COLLEGE,
SEETHA VILASA ROAD,
K R MOHALLA, MYSURU 570 004.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B.,ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SRI. KIRAN KUMAR., HCGP FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE ORDER OF CASE NO.KIC
15951 APL 2021 FROM THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
COMMISSION, MAHITI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, WEST GATE - 2 BENGALURU-
560001 AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioner a lecturer in Physics in the 5th respondent-
college is knocking at the doors of writ court for assailing
the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by the 1st respondent-
Commission whereby his RTI application has been
negatived quoting the provisions of Sec.8(1)(j) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005. The party-in-person
argues that he is entitled to know the material particulars
of service of the persons indicated in the RTI Application
inasmuch as that information provides the substratum for
structuring his claims in Service Law such as confirmation,
NC: 2023:KHC:29928
WP No. 23695 of 2022
seniority, promotion & the like. He argues that Sec.8(1)(j)
of 2005 Act having been wrongly construed, there is an
error apparent on the face of impugned order.
2. The first respondent-Commission has entered
appearance through its Sr. Panel Counsel; Respondents 2,
3 & 4 are represented by learned AGA; however the 5th
Respondent- Principal of the College has remained
unrepresented despite service of notice. Learned Panel
Counsel and learned AGA oppose the petition making
submission in justification of the impugned order placing
reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Girish
Ramchandra Deshpande vs Central Information
Commissioner & Ors, (2013) 1 SCC 212.
3. Having heard the petitioner-party-in-person and
learned Advocates appearing for the Respondents, this
court is inclined to grant indulgence in the matter
inasmuch as there is no scope for invocation of Sec.8(1)(j)
since petitioner is not a stranger to the Respondent-
institution, but a Lecturer working therein since years; it
NC: 2023:KHC:29928
WP No. 23695 of 2022
hardly needs to be stated that for working out redressal
for the grievances in service, an employee has to have full
service particulars of other employees working under the
same employer especially when dispute arises relating to
confirmation, seniority, promotion or the like. The
decision cited by the learned Panel Counsel in GIRISH
RAMACHANDRA DESHPANDE supra had a different fact
matrix and therefore the Apex Court held that personal
information cannot be furnished.
4. It hardly needs to be stated that a decision is
an authority for the proposition that has been laid down in
a given fact matrix of a case and not for all that which
logically follows from what has been laid down. Lord
Halsbury more than a century ago, in the celebrated case
of Quinn vs. Leathem (1901) A.C. 495, 506 has
observed as under:
"Now before discussing the case of Allen v.
Flood, (1898) A.C. 1 and what was decided
therein, there are two observations of a general
character which I wish to make, and one is to
repeat what I have very often said before, that
every judgment must be read as applicable to
NC: 2023:KHC:29928
WP No. 23695 of 2022
the particular facts proved, or assumed to be
proved, since the generality of the expressions
which may be found there are not intended to
be expositions of the whole law, but governed
and qualified by the particular facts of the case
in which such expressions are to be found. The
other is that a case is only an authority for
what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it
can be quoted for a proposition that may seem
to follow logically from it. Such a mode of
reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a
logical Code, whereas every lawyer must
acknowledge that the law is not always logical
at all."
5. The petitioner, a party-in-person is justified in
contending that unless the service particulars of the
persons which he has sought for in the subject RTI
application are furnished, he will not be in a position to
work out his grievance in the subject service matter. This
aspect has not animated the impugned order and
therefore there is an error apparent on its face warranting
indulgence of this court. He is more than justified in
placing reliance on the Government Order dated
02.06.2011 which prescribes certain parameters for
granting relaxation of service conditions relating to
NC: 2023:KHC:29928
WP No. 23695 of 2022
reservation. To avail benefit under the said Government
Order, the information which the petitioner has sought for,
becomes essential. Denying information virtually amounts
denying opportunity to the petitioner to avail the benefit of
said Government Order.
In view of the above, this petition succeeds; a Writ of
Certiorari issues quashing the impugned order of the State
Information Commission; petitioner's subject RTI
application having been favoured, the 5th respondent is
directed to furnish service particulars of the persons
concerned and copies of records in that connection within
a period of three weeks, failing which for the delay of each
day, the 5th respondent shall pay from his pocket a sum of
Rs.1,000/- to the petitioner.
The 5th respondent-Principal shall also pay a cost of
Rs.5,000/- towards expenses.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb/
