- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11963 WP No. 145155 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV WRIT PETITION NO. 145155 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL, BASAVESHWAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT-587103. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRANAV UMESH BADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, R/BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (CH-9), MAHITI SOUDHA NO.203, 2ND FLOOR, DEVARAJ URS ROAD, BENGALURU-01. 2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY & DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU-01. 3. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, BENGALURU-560001. 4. SADASHIV S/O SIDRAMA KEMBAVI AGE 48 YEARS, OCC: SERVICE, R/O: NO.49, 6TH CROSS ROAD, VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT-587103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2, R3 & R4 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 R/W ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.01.2020 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO.KAMAA14984 APL 2019 A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-D & ETC. Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11963 WP No. 145155 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) The present petition has been filed seeking to set-aside the impugned order passed on 20.1.2020 by respondent No.1/Karnataka Information Commission at Annexure-D. 2. The order at Annexure-D calls upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the information need not be directed to be furnished in terms of provisions of the Right to Information Act, 20051 and gives him an opportunity to be present on 13.11.2019 and make out reply, if any. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceedings under Right to Information are one without jurisdiction, as the petitioner is not a public authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and accordingly, submits that the proceedings impugned ought to be set-aside as being one without jurisdiction. 4. Respondent No.4 has been served and there is no representation on his behalf. 1 For short, ‘RTI Act’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11963 WP No. 145155 of 2020 5. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act reads as follows: (h) “Public Authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-Government established or constituted.- (a) by or under the Constitutions; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by appropriate government, and includes any.- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. 6. For the purpose of passing any direction, the authority to whom the direction is made, ought to be a public authority, which would include a body which is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. 7. An affidavit is filed by the Principal of the petitioner/college stating that though they are receiving aid, but they are not receiving aid more than 85% aid to run college. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11963 WP No. 145155 of 2020 8. Perused the order of the Apex Court in the case of Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited & Others Vs. State of Kerala & Others2. Paragraph-48 of the said judgment reads as under: “48. Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist. The State may also float many schemes generally for the betterment and welfare of the cooperative sector like deposit guarantee scheme, scheme of assistance from NABARD etc., but those facilities or assistance cannot be termed as “substantially financed” by the State Government to bring the body within the fold of “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act. But, there are instances, where private educational institutions getting ninety five per cent grant-in-aid from the appropriate government, may answer the definition of public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i).” 9. It is to be noticed that, if authority is to be considered to be a public authority, the same must be substantially financed. 10. As it is noticed that the assertion of the petitioner that they do not receive more than 85% of the aid, taking note of the observation at paragraph-48 of the order, it could be 2 (2013) 16 SCC 62 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11963 WP No. 145155 of 2020 stated that the institution/petitioner would not come within the definition of the public authority. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 20.01.2020 at Annexure-D is set-aside in light of observation made above. 12. However, in light of order being passed in the absence of the complainant, it would be appropriate to observe that the order passed may not be treated as precedent in any other matter involving the same institution. Sd/- (S.SUNIL DUTT YADAV) JUDGE JTR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10