IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ, J.
Pio & The Project Director Nirmiti Kendra – Appellant
Versus
The State Information Commissioner – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 52581 of 2017
Decided On : 06-08-2025
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner, PIO and the Project Director, Nirmiti Kendra, near Medahalli, Chitradurga District, is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
i. To issue a writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order in KIC 13961 APL 2015 dated 29.08.2017 as per Annexure-A passed by the 1st Respondent.
ii. To call for the entire records in KIC 13961 APL 2015 dated 29.08.2017 from the 1st respondent from Karnataka Information Commission CH No.3.-
iii. To pass an appropriate order/s as deems fit by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice and equity.
2. The Petitioner-Nirmiti Kendra is stated to be registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and is governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Societies Registration Act. It is contended that the Nirmiti Kendra is a private Society and it is not financed or aided by the State or Central Government.
3. The object of the Nirmiti Kendra being to develop skills in the construction area and carry out the civil contract/s assigned by the State. It is contended that the Nirmiti Kendra is governed by its governing body and as such, would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RTI Act’ for short).
4. In that background, Sri Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner would submit that:
-
4.1. The Nirmiti Kendra is not a Public Authority under the RTI Act. The endorsement issued by the Nirmiti Kendra on an application submitted by the 3rd Respondent for furnishing of information is proper and correct. The order of the 1st Respondent, the State Information Commissioner, dated 29.08.2017, directing the PIO of Nirmiti Kendra to furnish the information/documents sought for as also imposing a penalty of Rs.25,000/-, is not sustainable
4.2. His submission is that the Nirmiti Kendra not being a Public Authority, it would not be amenable to the rigor of the RTI Act. As such, no information is required to be furnished by the Nirmiti Kendra to any applicant under the RTI Act.
4.3. On the above grounds, he submits that the above petition is required to be allowed by setting aside the order passed by the 1st respondent, the State Information Commissioner.
-
5. Sri.J.Prashanth, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3 submits that:
5.1. The Nirmiti Kendra has been established for the purpose of carrying out activities on behalf of the State. In terms of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005, it is a Public Authority and it is controlled or substantially financed by the Government. There is no requirement for any notification to be issued or an order to be made. The mere fact that it is controlled or substantially financed would be sufficient for the Nirmiti Kendra to be included as a Public Authority in terms of Section 2 (h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.
5.2. His further submission is that even if the Nirmiti Kendra were held to be a Non-Government Organisation, it is substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. As such, it is a Public Authority in terms of Section 2 (h)(ii) of the RTI Act.
-
5.3. The Nirmiti Kendra is constituted for the development of a low-cost technical alternative in housing. The Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department had made a proposal for setting up the Nirmiti Kendras in seven centres of the State. The funds for the project are to be made available by HUDCO under the scheme for setting up of the Nirmiti Kendras.
5.4. It is by virtue of a Government order that the Nirmiti Kendras were constituted at Tumkur, Bellary, Kolar, Mandya, Gulbarga, Mysore and Bangalore with the assistance of Karnataka Land Army Corporation/Technology Research Organisation. The Nirmiti Kendras operate under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, Rural Development and Panchayath Raj, and 11 other members are provided to give requisite technical inputs.
-
5.5. The working group consisted of the Secretary of Government of Karnataka, Public Works Depart
Nirmiti Kendra is a public authority under the RTI Act, subject to transparency requirements due to government control and funding.
The High Court ruled that the petitioner qualifies as a 'Government Entity,' thereby eligible for tax exemption under the Karnataka GST Act due to 100% government control and funding.
A society not receiving government funding or control is not deemed a public authority under the RTI Act, as established by inconsistent previous decisions by the information commission.
A body is classified as a public authority under the RTI Act if it is substantially financed and controlled by the government, emphasizing transparency in public administration.
Public authorities are defined by substantial financing from the government, directly or indirectly, affecting their operational capacity, regardless of whether this financing exceeds 50%.
The Air Force Sports Complex is not a public authority under the RTI Act as it lacks substantial government control and financing, operating independently without performing public functions.
Temples do not qualify as a 'Public Authority' under the RTI Act as they are not owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government, thus invalidating a prior circular imposing such desig....
Temples do not qualify as 'Public Authorities' under the Right to Information Act as they are neither owned nor substantially financed by the government; mere public contributions do not equate to go....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.