| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1670083 |
| Court | Karnataka High Court |
| Decided On | Nov-27-2025 |
| Case Number | WP/35442/2018 |
| Judge | E.S.Indiresh |
| Appellant | Commissioner for Cane Development |
| Respondent | The Karnataka State Information Commission |
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.35442 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
1. COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR CBAB COMPLEX, F-BLOCK, 5TH FLOOR, KHB BUILDING
2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
COMMISSIONER FOR CANE DEVELOPMENT AND DIRECTOR OF SUGAR Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S CBAB COMPLEX, F BLOCK, Location: HIGH COURT OF 5TH FLOOR, KHB BUILDING KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS OFFICER SRI PRAKASH RAO …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RESHMA THAMMAIAH., ADVOCATE) -2- AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001
2. SRI KENGEGOWDA
S/O LATE THIMMEGOWDA, HOUSE NO.333, YELE CHAKANAHALLI POST, MANDYA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 402 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 - SERVED) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
DATED 9.5.2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN KIC 8165 APL2017 AND OTHER RELATED PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY, BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH -3-
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioners are assailing the
No.1.
3. Having taken note of the submission made by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondents, on careful consideration of the application made by respondent No.2 seeking information as per Annexure-B would indicate that, the information relating to the affairs of the Mysore Sugar Company and therefore, the said application was rightly rejected by the petitioners herein as per letter dated 18.01.2017 (Annexure-C).
4. It is also to be noted that respondent No.2 has filed
an appeal and the Appellate Authority at Annexure-D rejected the application made by respondent No.2 and relegated respondent No.2 to approach the Managing Director, Mysore Sugar Company, Mandya, for the required documents. The said aspect of the matter was ignored by respondent -4- No.1/Commission and has passed the impugned order at Annexure-A which is unsustainable in law as the information sought for by respondent No.2 at Annexure-B, has to be provided by the Mysore Sugar Company and not the petitioners herein. In that view of the matter, the observation made by the respondent No.1/Commission at paragraph No.4 of the impugned order at Annexure-A is not sustainable in law. Accordingly, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. In the result, I pass the following:
(i) The writ petition is allowed.
(ii) The order dated 09.05.2018 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent No.1 in KIC 8165 APL 2017 is hereby set aside. Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22