Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10554 WP No. 5093 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5093 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SMT DEEPA MALINI DEVI W/O SRI JAIDEEP BHALE RAO, D/O LATE MAHARAJKUMARI GAYATRI DEVI AND LATE SARDAR K.B. RAMACHANDRA RAJ URS, GRAND DAUGHTER OF LATE MAHARAJA JAYACHAMARAJENDRA WADIYAR, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 304, BRIGADE PARKWAY, 2ND MAIN ROAD, V.V. MOHALLA, MYSORE 570002. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA AND CULTURE, ROOM NO. 3,
Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10554 WP No. 5093 of 2026
GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.
2.
SRI. T.S. SUBRAMANYA S/O LATE T.S. SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MYSORE PALACE BOARD, THE MYSORE PALACE, MYSORE 570001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI., AGA FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING R2 TO THE REPRESENTATION DATED 18.09.25 VIDE ANNX-A AND PROVIDE INFORMATION AS SOUGHT BY THE PETITIONER .
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
- 3 -
HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10554 WP No. 5093 of 2026
ORAL ORDER
After being heard for some time, Sri Aravind Reddy H, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petition could be disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for short, 'the Act'].
Upon hearing Smt Saritha Kulkarni, a learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the first respondent, the petition stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to file an application with the first respondent, but with the observation that this Court has not expressed any opinion on whether such information could be furnished under the Act, as that has to be first considered by the concerned authority.
Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-