Judgment :- 1. Petitioner herein is impugning the order dated 06.11.2009 passed in Nos.KIC/8551 & 8553/COM/2008. 2. The admitted facts of the case are as under: Second Respondent herein submitted application to the office of Health Inspector, Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, for grant of trade license to start a Non Vegetarian Restaurant in the premises situated within the limits of Division No.27 of B.B.M.P. The petitioner herein who was Senior Health Inspector of Division No.27, issued an endorsement dated 05.09.2008 calling upon 2nd respondent to furnish additional three documents to consider his application for grant of license. To the said endorsement a reply was sent by 2nd respondent on 24.09.2008 stating that the building in which he intend to start the business being a new building, was not assessed to tax, and was not entered in the katha register. Therefore B.B.M.P., is not issuing the said documents. Second respondent also contended even otherwise the said documents are not required to be furnished along with the application under Suvarna Arogya Paravanige, 2007. 3. After this reply, there was no response from B.B.M.P., for considerable length of time. Hence two applications under Right to Information Act, were filed by the 2nd Respondent seeking the stage of the application submitted by him for grant of license. To the said applications, he received a reply on 05.05.2009 from the Public Information Officer, BBMP, Bangalore, stating that only one Officer has dealt with the file pertaining to his application from the date of application till the date, he sought information regarding said application. In the reply it was also indicated that the said file continues to be with the petitioner even as on 05.05.2009 and the same was not available in the officer of the Medical Officer, Gandhinagar, as on the date when 2nd respondent sought inspection of said file. 4. Thereafter, 2nd respondent filed two complaints in Complaint Nos.8551 & 8553/2008 before the first respondent herein. The first respondent herein issued notice to the Public Information Officer and Medical Officer (health), Gandhinagar Range, to appear before him and to give explanations for the delay in furnishing the information. 4. Thereafter, 2nd respondent filed two complaints in Complaint Nos.8551 & 8553/2008 before the first respondent herein. The first respondent herein issued notice to the Public Information Officer and Medical Officer (health), Gandhinagar Range, to appear before him and to give explanations for the delay in furnishing the information. In the said proceedings, the Medical Officer (Health), Gandhinagar appeared before the first respondent and submitted that the file pertaining to sanction of license to second respondent for starting his Non Vegetarian Restaurant was entrusted to A. Nagabhushanam, Senior Health Inspector (petitioner herein) for inspection, who conducted the inspection within 2-3 days therefrom and thereafter kept the file for himself. Subsequently, he was transferred to Health Office in Jagjivanramnagar. Even after such transfer, he has not surrendered the file and continue to keep the file with him. Therefore in the absence of relevant document, he was compelled to issue the endorsement dated 05.05.2009, which is at Annexure – “F” to this proceeding. 5. Thereafter the first respondent herein issued notice to petitioner to his office address. Admittedly the petitioner is a Public Servant. Notice sent to a Public Servant to their office address in normal course cannot come back undelivered unless the intention of the Officer is otherwise. Strangely in this case, notice has come back unserved. Thereafter the first respondent left with no other option, after re-ascertaining the address of petitioner, which is the same address, to which earlier notice was addressed, sent communication to petitioner through the Medical Officer (Health), Jagjivanramnagar, with a direction to serve the notice on the petitioner herein. It is seen that after taking extreme step of getting notice served to him through his Superior Officer, petitioner herein reluctantly appeared before first respondent on 06.11.2009 and shamelessly admitted that he is in possession of the entire file pertaining to applications regarding grant of license to second respondent for running his restaurant business. 6. When the petitioner admittedly got transferred from Ward No.27 to Jagjivanramnagar Ward in the month of November 2008, he had no business to carry the file with him to his new office. However, there is no explanation for this strange behavior of petitioner either in this writ petition or before the first respondent in the said proceedings. 6. When the petitioner admittedly got transferred from Ward No.27 to Jagjivanramnagar Ward in the month of November 2008, he had no business to carry the file with him to his new office. However, there is no explanation for this strange behavior of petitioner either in this writ petition or before the first respondent in the said proceedings. When the petitioner herein admitted about keeping the records with him without any valid reason and not taking any steps for clearing the application filed by respondent No.2 and also obstructing the Public Information Officer in giving relevant information to second respondent under Right to Information Act, the first respondent rightly held the delinquent official, i.e., the petitioner herein as deemed Information Officer under the Act. After hearing him the 1st respondent has rightly imposed maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- and also directed the B.B.M.P.,to hold an enquiry in this behalf. 7. The said order is impugned by petitioner herein in this proceeding on the ground that he is not the designated Public Information Officer under Section 5 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. That before passing the order, the first respondent did not give sufficient opportunity to him to decide the complaint against the petitioner for alleged obstruction in issuance of information under the Right to Information Act. It is his further contention that whatever the information that was issued by the Health Officer, Gandhinagar, on 05.05.2009, could have been issued by him within the specified time. Because of the delay caused by the Health Officer, Gandhinagar, he cannot be saddled with the maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/-. 8. Heard the counsel for petitioner and the learned Government Pleader appearing on behalf of first respondent. 9. On perusal of the records which was furnished by the first respondent with reference to the proceedings before the first respondent under Right to Information Act, it clearly discloses that the petitioner for extraneous consideration not only withheld the application filed by second respondent, has also taken steps to see that the second respondent would not be left with any other option, but to approach him for his work, even after he was transferred from the said place. His conduct in carrying the files of the 27th Division with him even after his transfer to Jagjivanramnagar officer clearly indicates his intention. His conduct in carrying the files of the 27th Division with him even after his transfer to Jagjivanramnagar officer clearly indicates his intention. It is further seen that when the second respondent brought to his notice under Suvarna Arogya Paravanige, 2007, such documents were not required to be produced, petitioner had no business to retain that file with him, he ought to have disposed of the same or in the alternative while he was giving charge to the new officer, he should have handed over that file to the Health Inspector, who took over charge from him. In such an event, the file would have been available for the Public Information Officer to give necessary information to second respondent when he filed the application under the Right to Information Act. 10. In the instant case, not only he refused to discharge his duty, but deliberately saw to that the entire file pertaining to grant of license to 2nd respondent is concealed in such a manner even when the second respondent files application seeking particulars regarding its stage, the same should not be made available to him. Therefore, the first respondent in the proceedings held before it has rightly deemed the petitioner herein as the Public Information Officer in so far as the file which was detained by him illegally and has passed the impugned order. 11. So far as the imposition of penalty at Rs. 25,000/-which is maximum penalty, counsel appearing for petitioner would submit that in the light of the decision rendered by the High court of Judicature at Madras in the matter of the Public Information Officer/General Manager-in-charge, Villupuram District and others Vs. The Tamil Nadu Information Commission & Others state that no sufficient opportunity was given to him to substantiate his stand before the order of penalty was imposed on him and that he is not being the Public Information Officer under the Act, question of imposing penalty on him is contrary to the provisions of law and that the first respondent has failed to apply the principles as secondary viewing authority based on Wednesbury principles. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is seen that the context under which the said finding was given by the said Court is totally different from the facts and circumstances on hand. On perusal of the aforesaid decision, it is seen that the context under which the said finding was given by the said Court is totally different from the facts and circumstances on hand. In the aforesaid judgment, before imposing penalty, petitioners were not heard, whereas in the instant case, though sufficient opportunity was given at earlier stage, it is the petitioner who deliberately avoided to appear before the first respondent and finally when the notice was issued to him through his Superior Officer, he has appeared before the first respondent and has admitted in unequivocal terms that the application dated 28.08.2008 continue to be in his custody even on the date when he appeared before the 1st respondent on 06.11.2009. 12. Admittedly by that time he was already transferred from the office to which the said application belongs and there was no explanation available with him for retaining the said file even beyond the period of one year of his transfer from the place to which the said application belongs and also his conduct in not appearing before the authority on earlier two occasions when notice was issued to him and not handing the entire file to the Public Information Officer, when the said Officer sought the file for giving reply to the application filed by the second respondent, clearly discloses his intention is to harass the second respondent for obvious reasons. Therefore the first respondent after giving sufficient opportunity to the petitioner herein and considering all the submissions made by him personally before the 1st respondent has rightly imposed maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- to the petitioner. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is seen probably if there is an opportunity to 1st respondent to impose much higher penalty, first respondent would have definitely awarded that. This Court also holds that if there is scope for review to enhance the same, this Court would not hesitate for a moment to enhance the same. However, it is suffice to say that there is neither irregularity not illegality in the order passed by first respondent in imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- and also directing the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. However, it is suffice to say that there is neither irregularity not illegality in the order passed by first respondent in imposing the penalty of Rs.25,000/- and also directing the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike to initiate proceedings against the petitioner. This Court is of the opinion that the impugned order against errant officer like the petitioner, is just and proper and this kind of orders will be an eye opener for other Officer similarly placed in B.B.M.P., or elsewhere, so that they would not cross their limits in discharging their function. 13. With these observations, the petition is dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- payable by the petitioner to High Court Legal Services Committee within one week from today. The Registry is directed to mark a copy of this order top Commissioner, B.B.M.P., to enter this in the Service Register of the Petitioner.