Karnataka High Court
Karnataka Chitrakala Parishath vs T Narishma Murthy on 30 October, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:43380
WP NO.53301 OF 2017
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.53301 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
KARNATAKA CHITRAKALA PARISHATH
ART COMPLEX,
KUMARA KRUPA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REP. BY the GENERAL SECRETARY,
PROF. M.J. KAMALAKSHI,
D/O H. JAYARAM GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KIRAN J., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. T. NARISHMA MURTHY
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER,
R/AT NO.19, 13TH 'G' CROSS,
JOGUPALYA HALSURU,
Digitally signed by
ARUNKUMAR M S BENGALURU - 560 008.
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 2. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION
KARNATAKA
MAHITI SOUDHA,
BENGALURU - 01.
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
RESPONDENT NO.1 - SERVED)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 09TH AUGUST, 2017 PASSED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NOS.KIC-10161 C/W KIC-
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:43380
WP NO.53301 OF 2017
HC-KAR
10163, KIC-10164, KIC-10165, KIC-10166, KIC-10167, KIC-
10168 AND KIC-10170 APL 2016; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARNG
IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 09th August, 2017 (Annexure-A) passed by the respondent No.2; inter alia sought to declare that the impugned order is contrary to law and not binding on the petitioner.
2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that the petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is an Art Complex operating in Bengaluru from the year-1960 fostering the network of Museums, Galleries and Archives that display a valuable collection of Pan-Indian Visual Culture that includes Folk, Traditional, Modern and Contemporary Art. It is also to be noted that the petitioner-Society is having an institution of Fine Arts, Under-Graduation, Post-Graduation and Research Program in Visual Arts for Indian and Foreign students. The -3- NC: 2025:KHC:43380 WP NO.53301 OF 2017 HC-KAR respondent No.1 had made an application under the Right To Information Act, 2005 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'RTI-Act'), seeking certain information from the petitioner- Society. The said application was rejected by the petitioner- Society vide letter dated 21st May, 2016 (Annexure-D) on the ground that the petitioner-Society is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI-Act. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 filed an appeal under Section 19(1) of the RTI-Act before the First Appellate Authority and the First Appellate Authority, by endorsement dated 28th June, 2016 (Annexure-E), rejected the claim made by the respondent No.1. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent No.1 questioned the endorsement dated 28th June, 2016 (Annexure- E) before competent authority in a second appeal under Section 19(3) of the RTI-Act, which came to be allowed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner-Society presented this petition.
3. Heard Sri. Jeevan Gopal on behalf of Sri. Kiran J., appearing for the petitioner and Sri. Rajashekhar K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2. -4-
NC: 2025:KHC:43380 WP NO.53301 OF 2017 HC-KAR
4. Sri. Jeevan Gopal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-Society will not come within the purview of Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI-Act and therefore, the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 requires to be set-aside in this writ petition.
5. Per contra, Sri. Rajashekhar K., learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submitted that the land in which the petitioner-Society running the institution is belonged to the Government and substantial financing has been made by the Government and therefore, the order impugned in this writ petition is just and proper. In this regard, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 places reliance on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY AND OTHERS vs. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS reported in (2019) 9 SCC 185 and argued that the impugned order requires to be confirmed in this writ petition.
6. In the light of arguments advanced by learned counsel appearing for the parties, the question which arises for consideration is whether the petitioner-Society is to be -5- NC: 2025:KHC:43380 WP NO.53301 OF 2017 HC-KAR considered as 'Authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI-Act. In this regard, it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner- Society is imparting education, situate in the land belonged to the Government and substantial financing is being made by the Government. In this connection, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY (supra) at paragraph 26 and 27, held as under:
"26. In our view, "substantial" means a large portion. It does not necessarily have to mean a major portion or more than 50%. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down in this regard. Substantial financing can be both direct or indirect. To give an example, if a land in a city is given free of cost or on heavy discount to hospitals, educational institutions or such other body, this in itself could also be substantial financing. The very establishment of such an institution, if it is dependent on the largesse of the State in getting the land at a cheap price, would mean that it is substantially financed. Merely because financial contribution of the State comes down during the actual funding, will not by itself mean that the indirect finance given is not to be taken into consideration. The value of the land will have to be evaluated not only on the date of allotment but even on the date when the question arises as to whether the said body or NGO is substantially financed.
27. Whether an NGO or body is substantially financed by the Government is a question of fact which has to be -6- NC: 2025:KHC:43380 WP NO.53301 OF 2017 HC-KAR determined on the facts of each case. There may be cases where the finance is more than 50% but still may not be called substantially financed. Supposing a small NGO which has a total capital of Rs.10,000 gets a grant of Rs.5000 from the Government, though this grant may be 50%, it cannot be termed to be substantial contribution. On the other hand, if a body or an NGO gets hundreds of crores of rupees as grant but that amount is less than 50%, the same can still be termed to be substantially financed."
7. Following the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V. COLLEGE TRUST AND MANAGEMENT SOCIETY (supra), as it is not in dispute that the petitioner- Society is running institution in the land belonging to the Government, the contention raised by the petitioner-Society cannot be accepted. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE ARK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22