SRI JAGADEESHWARAPPA S/O VIRUPAKASHAPPA vs. BASAVARAJ S MUNOLI

: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH ON THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2015 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH WRIT PETITION No.62509/2009 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI JAGADEESHWARAPPA, S/O VIRUPAKASHAPPA WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF MOTOR VEHICLES IN THE OFFICE OF R T O KOPPAL & RESIDING AT B T PATIL NAGAR, KOPPAL, TQ & DIST KOPPAL. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.R.M.KULKARNI, ADV.) AND: 1. BASAVARAJ S MUNOLI FATHER’S NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O NEAR FLAT NO 507, G D A LAYOUT, PRASHANTHANAGAR (B) GULBARGA. 2. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER KOPPAL. 3. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION GATE NO 1, III STAGE, III FLOOR, M S BUILDING,

: 2 : BANGALORE 560001. 4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, M S BUILDING, FIRST FLOOR, VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE 560001. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MALLIKARJUN C.BASAREDDY, ADV. FOR R1 (ABSENT), SMT.VEENA HEGDE, HCGP FOR R2 AND 4, R3 SD) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.3/3/09 PASSED BY R-3 AT ANN-D AND ETC., THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The respondent No.1 sought for certain information from the petitioner namely the list of his assets and liabilities for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008. Since the same was not replied, he approached the Karnataka Information Commission. A notice was issued to the petitioner. He replied stating that it is his personal information. The Commission by the impugned order directed the petitioner to provide the information within 30 days and also as to why costs of Rs.10,000/- should not be awarded. Aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed.

: 3 : 2. The division bench of this Court by order dated 09.04.2013 passed in W.A.No.1634/2009 have held that information pertaining to income tax returns are to be considered as ‘personal information’ which stand exempted from disclosure under clause (j) of Section 8(1) of the Right to Information Act. The said view was supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.27734/2012. 3. The information sought for herein is identical to the information sought for in the aforesaid writ appeal. 4. Therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this petition is allowed. The order dated 03.03.2009 in KIC 7071 COM 2008 passed by respondent No.3 vide Annexure-D is quashed. [Sd/-] JUDGE Jm/-