- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF MAY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT WRIT PETITION NO.109279 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: THE PRINCIPAL, BASAVESHWAR ENGINEERING COLLEGE, BAGALKOT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. S.B. HEBBALLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, R/BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER (CH-4), GATE NO.2, 2ND FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-1. 2. SADASHIV, S/O. SIDRAMA KEMBAVI, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER, R/O. YOGESH NILAYA, PLOT NO.M-40, BRIVANDAVAN SECTOR NO.63-A, NAVANAGAR, BAGALKOT, DIST: BAGALKOT. 3. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, PALACE ROAD, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DAYANAND M. BANDI, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, AGA FOR R3) (NOTICE TO R2 HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.07.2014 PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN NO KIC 8875 MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 COMPLAINT 2013, A COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-K & ETC. 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 G PANDIT ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT) Petitioner, an Educational Institution, is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 01.07.2014 passed in No.KIC 8875 Complaint 2013 (Annexure-K) by respondent No.1-Karnataka Information Commission (for short, ‘the Commission’). 2. Heard Sri. S.B.Hebballi, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri. V.S.Kalasurmath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 3. Respondent No.2 though served has remained unrepresented. 4. Learned counsel, Sri. S.B.Hebballi would submit that the petitioner is an aided Engineering College. Further, he - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 submits that though it is a grant-in-aid institution, grant is not extended to all the departments. Respondent No.2 sought certain information under Annexure-A, dated 15.06.2013. The information sought for by respondent No.2 is to provide certified copy of the letter by the Directorate of Technical Education, Bangalore, bearing No.DTE 103 EST 4(A) 2011, dated 10.12.2012 and also to provide certified copies of the documents and files corresponded to the Directorate of Technical Education, Bangalore regarding the roster calculations to categorise of Associate Professor post of Mechanical Engineering Department as a GM post and Professor posts of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department and Mathematics Department as a GM Post, as per the advertisement made by the College to various teaching posts. Learned counsel, Sri. S.B.Hebballi would submit that the information sought at Sl.No.1 is provided and the second information with regard to details of roster calculations are concerned, the petitioner-College has informed that he has to obtain the said information from the Directorate of Collegiate Education to which the college has furnished the information. Respondent No.2 not being satisfied with the reply filed an - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e., Directorate of Technical Education. During the pendency of the said appeal he also approached respondent No.1-Commission in KIC 8875 PTN 2013. The petitioner filed its objection before respondent No.1-Commission contending that under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, ‘the 2005 Act’), the petitioner-College is not a “Public Authority” since it is not wholly financed or aided by the State Government. It is his submission that though the petitioner-College is receiving grant, it is not substantial grant. Therefore, he submits that the petitioner-College cannot be called as ‘public authority’ and therefore, the provisions of the 2005 Act would have no application to the petitioner-College. In addition, learned counsel would contend that the second information sought for by respondent No.2 is vague and respondent No.2 has not sought for particular information; it is general information and the said general information is not available with the petitioner. Thus, learned counsel would pray for allowing the writ petition. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 would support the order passed by respondent No.1-Commission. Further, he submits that the - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 petitioner-College is a grant-in-aid College and therefore, it cannot be said that it is not a ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act. Thus, the learned Additional Government Advocate would submit that it is for the petitioner to provide information sought for by respondent No.2. Therefore, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for consideration is, Whether the impugned order, dated 01.07.2014, passed in KIC 8875 Complaint 2013 (Annexure-K) by respondent No.1 requires interference? 7. The answer to the above point would be in the affirmative for the following reasons. (a) The first contention urged by the learned counsel Sri. S.B.Hebballi is that the petitioner-College is not a “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act. Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act defines “Public Authority”, which reads as follows: - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 (h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted-- (a) by or under the Constitution; (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 the appropriate Government, and includes any-- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; The petitioner-College falls under Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act. The petition averment itself indicates that the petitioner-College is receiving aid from the Government, but the contention of the petitioner is that it is not receiving substantial aid. Once the petitioner-College receives aid, whether it is substantial or partial, it becomes a “Public Authority” since it is being financed or aided by the State Government. Thus, when the petitioner-College - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 receives grant-in-aid, it would be a “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the 2005 Act. Therefore, the said contention would not merit any consideration. (b) Learned counsel, Sri. S.B.Hebballi nextly contended that the information sought at Sl.No.1 by the petitioner is supplied and with regard to the second information sought for by respondent No.2 under Annexure-A, dated 15.06.2013, is concerned, the same is vague. The second information sought under Annexure-A, dated 15.06.2013 reads as follows: “2) Provide certified copies of the documents and files corresponded to the Directorate of Technical Education, Bangalore regarding the details of roster calculations to categorise the Associate Professor post of Mechanical Engineering Department as a GM post and Professor posts of Electrical and Electronics Engineering Department and Mathematics Department as a GM posts as per the advertisement made by the Government Aided Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot in Deccan Herald English daily dated 30/05/2013 to recruit various teaching positions at government Aided Basaveshwar Engineering College, Bagalkot.” - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 A reading of the above would indicate that the information sought for by respondent No.2 is with regard to roster point and its calculations. Respondent No.2 has not furnished the period for which the information is sought for relates to. Further, it seeks for certified copies of the documents and files corresponded to the Directorate of Technical Education, Bangalore; it would not give the file number or the date of the correspondence. When the information sought is not particular information and when it is general information, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that a vague information is sought for, has to be accepted. When the information with regard to roster or roster point is sought, the person who seeks such information shall have to seek information for a particular period or shall indicate the period for which the information is sought. Further, it shall also indicate the post and if it relates to any particular advertisement, the information with regard to the appointments already made shall have to be indicated. In the absence of any such particulars of information sought, the same would amount to vague - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:7083 WP No.109279 of 2014 information. Thus, the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted. (c) Respondent No.1-Commission failed to examine as to information sought for by respondent No.2 is vague and whether the petitioner-College would be in a position to provide such information. Hence, the following: ORDER i) Writ Petition is allowed. ii) The impugned order, dated 01.07.2014 passed in No.KIC 8875 Complaint 2013 (Annexure-K) by respondent No.1 is hereby quashed. Sd/- (S G PANDIT) JUDGE KMS,CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 5