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
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.
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
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
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
