Karnataka High Court
Marimallappa S Education Trust vs The State Information Commissioner on 11 February, 2025
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
WP No. 20285 of 2024
C/W WP No. 20289 of 2024
WP No. 20301 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO. 20285 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 20289 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 20301 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
WRIT PETITION NO. 20306 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 20285/2024
BETWEEN:
MARIMALLAPPA S EDUCATION TRUST
SEETHAVILAS ROAD, K R MOHALLA
MYSURU - 570004
REP. BY ITS HON. SECRETARY
SRI K N PANCHAKSHARA SWAMY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.VEERABHADRAIAH., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed by
KRISHNAPPA LAXMI AND:
YASHODA
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION,
MAHITHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
WEST GATE - 2,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
NARAYANASHASHTRI ROAD
MYSORE - 570004
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
WP No. 20285 of 2024
C/W WP No. 20289 of 2024
WP No. 20301 of 2024
AND 1 OTHER
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560003
4. SRI A S MALLIARJUNA SWAMY
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO 2341 HOSABANDIKERI, 1ST CROSS,
NANJUMALIGE, MYSORE - 570004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R2 & R3
SRI. A.S.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY., R4-PARTY IN PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR
ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R1 THE STATE INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
COMMISSION, BENGALURU OF THE CASE NO.
KIC/26401/APL/2023 AND ETC.
BETWEEN:
MARIMALLAPPA S EDUCATION TRUST
SEETHAVILAS ROAD,
K R MOHALLA, MYSURU-570004
REPRESENTED BY ITS HON SECRETARY
SRI K N PANCHAKSHARA SWAMY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.VEERABHADRAIAH., ADVOCATE)
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
AND:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION,
MAHITHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
WEST GATE - 2,
BENGALURU - 560001
2. THE DEPPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF
PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
NARAYANASHASHTRI ROAD
MYSORE - 570004
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF
PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560003
4. SRI A S MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO 2341 HOSABANDIKERI,
1ST CROSS, NANJUMALIGE,
MYSORE - 570004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R2 & R3
SRI. A.S.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY., R4-PARTY IN
PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 THE STATE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA
INFORMATION COMMISSION BENGALURU OF THE CASE
NO. KIC/26393/APL/2023.QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD. 25.06.2024 PASSED IN CASE NO. KIC/ 26393/ APL/
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
2023 BY THE R-1 THE STATE INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
COMMISSION, BENGALURU AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.
BETWEEN:
MARIMALLAPPA EDUCATION TRUST
SEETHAVILAS ROAD, K R MOHALLA
MYSURU - 570004
REPRESENTED BY ITS HON SECRETARY
SRI K N PANCHAKSHARA SWAMY.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M. VEERABHADRAIAH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION,
MAHITHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
WEST GATE - 2, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
NARAYANA SHASHTRI ROAD
MYSORE - 570004
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU - 560003
4. SRI A S MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
NO 2341 HOSABANDIKERI,
1ST CROSS, NANJUMALIGE,
MYSORE - 570004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R2 & R3
SRI. A.S.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY., R4-PARTY IN
PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE 1ST RESPONDENT THE
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA
INFORMATION COMMISSION, BENGALURU OF THE CASE
NO.KIC/26397/APL/2023 AND ETC.
BETWEEN:
MARIMALLAPPA EDUCATION TRUST
SEETHAVILAS ROAD,
K R MOHALLA MYSURU - 570004
REP. BY ITS HON SECRETARY
SRI K.N. PANCHAKSHARA SWAMY
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.VEERABHADRAIAH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION,
MAHITHI SOUDHA, DEVARAJ URS ROAD,
OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA,
WEST GATE - 2, BENGALURU - 560001
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
2. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
NARAYANSHASHTRI ROAD
MYSORE - 570004
3. THE DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF PRE UNIVERSITY EDUCATION
18TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM,
BENGALURU- 560003
4. SRI A S MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY
S/O LATE SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
NO 2431, HOSABANDIKERI, 1ST CROSS,
NANJUMALLIGE
MYSORE - 570004
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARATH GOWDA G B., ADVOCATE FOR R1
SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFAR SHAH., AGA FOR R2 & R3
SRI. A.S.MALLIKARJUNA SWAMY., R4-PARTY IN
PERSON)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL
FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-1 THE STATE
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA
INFORMATION COMMISSION, BENGALURU OF THE CASE
NO. KIC/26389/APL/2023 QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER
DTD 25.06.2024 PASSED IN CASE NO.KIC/26389/APL/
2023 BY THE R-1 THE STATE INFORMATION
COMMISSIONER, THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION
COMMISSION, BENGALURU AS PER ANNX-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
ORAL COMMON ORDER
These four writ petitions have been filed arising out
of the four different appeals filed by the 4th respondent
seeking four different information from the petitioner-
Trust. Therefore, all the four writ petitions are clubbed,
heard together and disposed of by this common order.
2. The petitioner an Education Trust, is aggrieved of
the impugned order dated 25.06.2024 at Annexure-A,
passed by the Chief Information Commission.
3. The 4th respondent had filed certain applications
with the petitioner-Trust seeking certain information which
pertain to the 4th respondent's services with the petitioner-
Trust or its Educational Institutions. When information
was not provided, the 4th respondent filed an appeal
before the State Information Commission. A perusal of the
impugned order shows that the application was filed on
18.01.2023 with the petitioner-Trust and when no
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
information was furnished, the 4th respondent approached
the appellate authority in terms of Section 19 (1) of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as
'the RTI Act,' for short) on 08.09.2023. On 30.05.2024,
preliminary enquiry was held by the Commission.
Thereafter, notices were issued to the Information Officer
of the petitioner-Trust calling for the presence of the
Information Officer before the Commission. The notice
was issued to Sri.Panchakshari Swamy, the Secretary of
the petitioner-Trust, who is also considered as the Public
Information Officer. It is stated in the impugned order
that despite several notices being issued to the petitioner-
Trust and when there was no appearance on behalf of the
petitioner-Trust, the Commission was constrained to call
upon the Director of Pre-University Education to furnish
information as to whether the petitioner-Trust and its
Institutions are aided Institutions. Accordingly,
Sri.Mohammed Ziyaulla Khan, Assistant Director, Pre-
University Education Department, appeared before the
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
Commission and placed the material stating that the D.
Marimallappa Pre-University College, Mysore, is an aided
institution. Accordingly, the Commission has proceeded to
pass the impugned order.
4. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that statement of objections was sought to be
filed at the hands of the petitioner on 08.04.2024 as could
be seen at Annexure-Q. However, there was no sitting on
that day and therefore, the statement of objections was
forwarded by registered post along with the Vakalath of
the learned Counsel. Learned Counsel submits that a
stand has been taken by the petitioner in the statement of
objections that the petitioner-Trust will not come within
the purview of "public authority" as defined under Section
2(h) of the RTI Act. It was sought to be contended that
the Trust has not taken any financial assistance from the
Central Government or State Government, directly. It was
therefore contended that since the petitioner is not a
'public authority' falling within confines of the provisions of
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
the RTI Act, the appeal preferred by the 4th respondent
should be dismissed. However, it is pointed to the
impugned order that nothing is mentioned about the
statement of objections filed by the petitioner-Trust. It is
also contended that all the information sought by the 4th
respondent has already been given to him and the 4th
respondent is in the habit of seeking such information
again and again, for the reasons best known for him.
5. Per Contra, learned Counsel Sri.G.B.Sharath
Gowda, appearing for the State Information Commission
submits that petitioner has itself furnished copies of the
communications made by the Deputy Director of Pre-
University Department at Annexures-K, L and M, clearly
stating that the Secretary of the Trust is required to
appear before the Commission to contest the appeal filed
at the hands of the 4th respondent herein. The
communications were made on 15/11/2023, 18/12/2023,
30/12/2023 and a reply dated 29/01/2024 at Annexure-N,
is given by the petitioner to the Deputy Director of the
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
Pre-University Education Department stating that all
information sought by the 4th respondent has already
given and there is no need to furnish such information and
moreover, the petitioner does not come under the purview
of the RTI Act. Learned Counsel would therefore submit
that it is very clear from the conduct of the petitioner that
it has declined to appear before the Commission.
6. Learned Counsel for the State Information
Commission also sought to place reliance on a judgment of
the 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
(2019) 9 SCC 185, wherein it was held that
NGO/Society/Institution not owned or controlled by
Government, not having been created by an Act or
Notification, would still fall under the ambit of "public
authority" if it is substantially financed directly or indirectly
by Government. It was also pointed out that in the said
case the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that each
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
institution of the appellant falls within the ambit of "public
authority", because 40% to 44% of total expenditure of
each of the institution, which is about 95% of expenditure
of teaching staff is financed by Government and therefore,
it was held that the said institution was substantially
financed by the Government. It is further submitted that
despite opportunity being given to the petitioner-Trust to
appear before the Commission and contest the matter, the
petitioner has deliberately remained absent and the
petitioner should not be permitted to contend before this
Court that no opportunity was given to the petitioner.
7. The 4th respondent, party-in-person submits that
earlier too, certain other information was sought by him
from the Principal of the Marimallappa Pre-University
College and when such information was not given, he took
up the matter before the State Information Commission
and orders were passed by the Commission in case
bearing No.20330 APL 2023, as found at Annexure-E. It
is pointed out that during the said proceedings, such
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
objections were not raised by the petitioner that it is not a
'public authority' and therefore, it is not obliged to give
such information under the RTI Act. However, in the
present case, such a stand is sought to be taken by the
petitioner, only on the ground that the petitioner is a Trust
and not an Educational Institution. The 4th respondent/
party-in-person also submits that before seeking
information from the petitioner-Trust, he had also made
such application before the Principal of the Institution and
the Principal directed him to approach the management
and therefore, the 4th respondent was forced to approach
the petitioner-Trust, since such information was available
only with the management and not with the Principal of
the Institution.
8. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
petitioner, learned Counsel for the contesting respondents,
the 4th respondent/party-in-person and on perusing the
petition papers, this Court finds that the petitioner was
fully aware of the fact that the 4th respondent had filed an
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
appeal before the State Information Commission. The
communications were also made by the Deputy Directory
of the Pre-University Education calling upon the petitioner-
Trust to contest the matter before the State Information
Commission. It is also a fact that statement of objections
were prepared by the petitioner, but was not filed before
the Commission. It is only contended before this Court
that the statement of objections were sent through
registered post. Surely, this is not what is expected from
the petitioner-Trust. It has been running an educational
institution which has carved out a great reputation not
only in Mysore, but also the entire State. At one point of
time there were many rank holders from this institution.
9. It is admitted at the hands of the learned Counsel
for the petitioner that the institution run by the Trust, is
aided. Although, it is also sought to be contended that
only a few posts of certain subjects are aided and the
entire Institution is not aided, such submissions cannot be
countenanced. The primary duty of the petitioner-Trust
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
was to appear before the Commission, when the notices
were issued. Instead of appearing before the Commission,
a reply is given by the petitioner-Trust to the Deputy
Director stating that it is not a 'public authority' and
therefore, it need not give any information to the 4th
respondent. The argument sought to be canvassed by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-Trust
is not aided, but its institution is aided and therefore, the
petitioner cannot be held as a 'public authority' falling
within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act, also
cannot be countenanced. It was for the petitioner to have
appeared before the Commission to place relevant
information to contest that it is not a 'public authority' and
it is not obliged to give such information. Despite several
notices being received by the petitioner, both at the hands
of the Commission as well as the Officers of the
Department, the petitioner has failed to apear before the
Commission.
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:6135
AND 1 OTHER
10. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the case does not call for any
interference at the hands of this Court. Consequently,
these writ petitions stand dismissed.
11. Pending Interlocutory Application(s), if any,
stand(s) disposed of.
Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE
DL
CT: JL
