- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 51647 OF 2012 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: BANGALORE GOLF CLUB(BGC) SANKEY ROAD, HIGH GROUNDS, BANGALORE 560001, REPRESENTED BY ITS HONARARY SECRETARY …PETITIONER (BY SRI.A.M.SURESH REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, 3RD FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE. 2. THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, NO. 14/3, 1ST FLOOR, SRI. ARAVIND BHAVAN, (MYTHIC SOCIETY) NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE. 3. SRI. UMAPATHI S. ADVOCATE NO. 1, THIRUMALA NIVAS, KIRLOSKAR LAYOUT, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560073. AND PRESENTLY RESIDING AT PLOT NO. 7062, SHOBA Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 RUBY APARTMENTS, TUMKUR ROAD, NAGASANDRA, BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI.UMAPATHY.S., PETITIONER-PARTY IN PARSON FOR C/R3 SRI.MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT.11.12.12 PASSED BY THE R2 UNDER ANN-N. GRANT INTERIM ORDER TO STAY THE OPERATION OF THE ORDER DT.11.12.12 PASSED BY THE R2 PRODUCED UNDER ANN-N. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has challenged an order dated 11.12.2012 passed by the respondent No.2 case No.KIC 4513 PTN 2012. 2. (i) The petitioner is a society registered under the provisions of the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1960’ for short) and its object is to promote the game of golf and provide facilities for playing, coaching and training in golf to its members and associates. The State Government had granted 60 acres 15 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 guntas of land on a yearly rent of Rs.100/- with effect from 1971 to 1984 and Rs.5,000/- per annum between 1985 to 1991 and Rs.10,000/- per annum from 1992 to 2021. This lease is extended for thirty years from 02.07.2021 to 01.07.2051, at the rate of 2% of the gross annual income generated by the petitioner. (ii) The respondent No.3 filed an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’ for short), seeking certified copies of the list of records catalogued and indexed under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act, 2005 along with information/booklet published under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, 2005. In response to the said application, the petitioner issued a reply dated 13.02.2012 informing the respondent No.3 that it is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005. Being aggrieved by the said reply, the respondent No.3 approached the respondent No.2 under Section 18(1) of the Act, 2005 to declare the petitioner as a public authority and to ensure compliance of Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, 2005, appointment of public information officers, first appellate authority etc., - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 (iii) The respondent No.2 issued a notice to the petitioner to appear before it on 21.08.2012. The petitioner appeared and filed a reply stating that it is a society registered under the Karnataka Society Registration Act, 1960 and not an entity funded by the State Government. The respondent No.2 after considering the fact that the petitioner was granted land on concessional rent, held that the petitioner is a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h)(d)(ii) of the Act, 2005. On the sidelines of the said order, the respondent No.2 directed the Karnataka State Tourism Department to appoint a public information officer and first appellate authority. The respondent No.2 directed the respondent No.3 to approach the first appellate authority to be appointed under Section 19(1) of the Act, 2005, within 30 days and to approach the respondent No.2 under Section 19(3) of the Act, 2005, if not satisfied with the information provided. Being aggrieved by the order dated 11.12.2012, the petitioner is before this Court. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order was passed by the respondent No.2 without following the procedure contemplated under the Right to Information Act and the Rules and therefore, the impugned - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 order is liable to be quashed. He also contended that the respondent No.2 committed an error in treating the lease granted by respondent No.1 as financial involvement by the government in the control and management of the petitioner, though there was no such involvement of the State Government in the control and management. Consequently, he contends that the impugned order falls foul of Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act, 2005. He also contends that when the lease deed executed by the respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner did not contain any recital as to concession, the respondent No.2 ought not to have treated the petitioner as a public authority. With these and other ancillary contentions, the learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is not a public authority and therefore, the respondent No.2 cannot compel the petitioner to comply with Section 4(1)(b) of the Act, 2005 and also to appoint a public information officer and appellate authority. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the issue raised by the petitioner in this petition is no longer res integra in view of the judgment of a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.13336/2018 and WP - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 No.55173/2014. He also contends that the very same question arose for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of D.A.V. College Trust Fund and Management Society & Others. v. Director of Public Instructions & Others- (2019) 9 SCC 185 and (2013) 16 SCC 82, where the Apex Court considered the definition of "substantially financed directly or indirectly" by the government and held that the question whether a body is substantially financed or not would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. He therefore contended that the petitioner is given lease of 60 acres on concessional rent and therefore, the land leased to the petitioner is the substratum for the petitioner to exist and therefore, the concessional lease amounts to indirectly financing the petitioner substantially. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.13336/2018 had held that the grant of land on which a club is situated would amount to substantial financing by the State. He however submits that this judgment is questioned in writ appeal Nos.276/2021, 314/2021, 318/2021 and 760/2023. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 6. A public authority is defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 as follows: ”2(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;" 7. With respect to a non-government organization, if it is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate government, that too would fall within the definition of a public authority. In the case on hand, it is seen that the activities of the petitioner is to promote the game of golf and the land leased to the petitioner is on a concessional basis and thus amounts to indirectly financing the activities of the petitioner - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35816 WP No. 51647 of 2012 substantially. The petitioner cannot exist without the land leased and hence it has to be held that the petitioner is substantially financed/funded by the State Government. In view of the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP No.13336/2018, where it was held that a club established on land granted by the government would also be a public authority, the questions raised in this writ petition are no longer res integra and accordingly, this writ petition is also disposed off, on similar lines as in WP No.13336/2018. The writ petition stands disposed off on the above terms. 8. However, there is a reference in the impugned order linking the petitioner with the Karnataka State Tourism Department, which has nothing to do with the petitioner. Therefore, the words Karnataka State Tourism Department found in the impugned order shall stand deleted. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE BKN/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23