Dismissed¶59

Prasad v. Karnataka Information Commissioner

Karnataka HC9 Oct 2025WP/15117/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RTI Act 2005 — Section 2(f) definition of 'information'; request for names of persons who conducted survey/spot inspection of property; Karnataka Information Commission, Case No. KIC 601 APL 2018; State Public Information Officer and Zonal Commissioner, Zone-2, Mysuru Mahanagara Palike; Articles 226 and 227, Constitution of India; writ petition (GM-RES) dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The information claimed by the petitioner, namely the identity of the persons who conducted the survey/spot inspection of the property in question, does not find place within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. ¶58

Prasad Vs Karnataka Information Commissioner — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶59

Issue for consideration

Whether the information claimed by the petitioner, namely the identity of the persons who conducted the survey/spot inspection of the property in question, falls within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

¶58

Ratio / Principle

The respondents were justified in issuing the impugned endorsement/order; consequently, no interference was called for and the writ petition was dismissed.

¶58

Key takeaways

Since nothing stated in the writ petition showed who owns the property in question, the Court concluded that the petitioner is not the owner of the property in question.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Single Judge (E.S. Indiresh, J.), High Court of Karnataka. Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging (i) endorsement dated 28.11.2018 (Annexure-A) and (ii) order dated 06.07.2018 in Case No. KIC 601 APL 2018 (Annexure-F) of the Karnataka Information Commission (Respondent No.1), with a further prayer for a direction to Respondents 2 and 3 to furnish information. The petitioner had sought particulars of the persons who conducted a survey/spot inspection of the property in question; Respondent No.3 rejected the request by endorsement dated 15.05.2017 (Annexure-D) as not disclosable under Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005; his appeal was dismissed on 15.09.2017; and the Commission closed KIC 601 APL 2018 holding that the information had already been furnished. Held: the identity of the persons who conducted the survey/spot inspection does not find place within the definition of 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act; noting that nothing in the writ petition showed the petitioner to be the owner of the property, the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned endorsement/order and no interference was called for. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:39762 WP NO.15117 OF 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.15117 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

PRASAD S/O LATE S. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, #1230/CH 36, 2^ND CROSS, KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM, MYSURU - 570 024.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. AKSHAY S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SRINIVAS D.C., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSIONER "MAHITHI SOUDHA", ROOM NO.103, 1^ST FLOOR, OPP: VIDHANASOUDHA WEST GATE-2, D. DEVARAJ URS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶14

Digitally signed by SHARMA ANAND CHAYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER MYSURU MAHANGARA PALIKE, SAYYAJI RAO ROAD, MYSURU - 570 001.

¶16

THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER AND ZONAL COMMISSIONER, ZONE-2,MYSURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, JAYANAGARA GATE, KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM,

¶17

MYSURU - 570 024.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. GEETHA DEVI M.P., ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:39762 WP NO.15117 OF 2019

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SETASIDE THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 28^TH NOVEMBER, 2018 ISSUED BY THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION I.E., THE RESPONDENT NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-A; SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 06^TH JULY, 2018 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 IN KIC 601 APL 2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-F; AND ETC.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S. INDIRESH

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the

¶28

endorsement dated 28^th November, 2018 (Annexure-A) issued by the respondent No.1 and order dated 06^th July, 2018 (Annexure-F) passed by the respondent No.1; inter alia sought for direction to the respondents 2 and 3 to issue information as requested by the petitioner.

¶29

It is the case of the petitioner that the

¶30

petitioner is a citizen of India, seeking information with regard to inspection conducted by the respondentAuthorities in respect of the property bearing No.1230/CH

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:39762 WP NO.15117 OF 2019

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

36C, 2^nd Cross, K.M. Puram, Musuru as per Annexure-C to

¶35

the writ petition. The respondent No.3, by endorsement dated 15^th May, 2017 (Annexure-D), rejected the application on the ground that the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be disclosed under Section 2(f) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'RTI-Act'). Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner preferred the appeal before the respondent No.2, which came to be dismissed by order dated 15^th September, 2017. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the respondent No.1 in case No.KIC 601 APL 2018 and the respondent No.1, by order dated 06^th July, 2018 (Annexure-F), closed the proceedings holding that the respondent-Authorities have already furnished the information to the petitioner.

¶36

Heard Sri. Akshay S., learned counsel on behalf

¶37

of Sri. Srinivas D.C., appearing for the petitioner; Sri. G.B. Sharath Gowda, learned counsel appearing for the

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:39762 WP NO.15117 OF 2019

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

respondent No.1; and Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3.

¶42

Sri. Akshay S., learned counsel appearing for

¶43

the petitioner submitted that the reason assigned by the respondent No.3 in endorsement dated 15^th May, 2017 (Annexure-D) is incorrect as the petitioner has sought for information about the persons who have conducted the spot inspection with regard to the property in question referred to above. He further contended that the respondents be directed to provide information as sought for in the Form-A appended to the Annexure-E. Accordingly, he sought for interference of this Court.

¶44

Per contra, Smt. Geetha Devi M.P., learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 and 3 invited the attention of the Court to the Section 2(f) of the RTI-Act and submitted that the information sought for by the petitioner cannot be issued as per Section 2(f) of the RTIAct. Accordingly, she sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶45

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:39762 WP NO.15117 OF 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

6. In the light for submission made by learned

¶49

counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the writ papers, the same would indicate that the petitioner is claiming information about the persons who had conducted survey/spot inspection in respect of the property in question referred to above. Undisputedly, nothing is stated in the writ petition as to who is the owner of the property in question and therefore, it may be concluded that the petitioner is not a owner of the property in question and in the backdrop of these aspects, I have gone through the language employed under Section

¶50

2(f) of the RTI-Act, which reads as under:

¶51

"2(f). "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any law for the time being in force."

¶52

On perusal of the definition of the 'information'

¶53

in the RTI-Act, I have carefully examined the Column No.3

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:39762 WP NO.15117 OF 2019

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

in Form-A appended to the Annexure-E, wherein the

¶58

petitioner has sought for information of persons who conducted the survey/spot inspection of the property in question. In that view of the matter, the said information does not find place under Section 2(f) of the RTI-Act and as such, the respondents were justified in issuing the impugned endorsement/order to the petitioner. Therefore, I am of the view that, no interference be called for in the

¶59

present petition. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed.

¶60

SD/(E.S. INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶61

ARK

¶62

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Prasad v. Karnataka Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prasad v. Karnataka Information Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Vani Shthyan Vs Indian Overseas Bank

Sri Tarun Kumar Choudary Vs State by Karnataka

Sekasi Nimrod Vs Ministry of Home Affairs

Dr Vasudeva Prabhu Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri M Narasappa Reddy Vs the Bengaluru District Maintenance and

Ramachandra Jogi Vs the Commissioner