Allowed

M/S. Mangalore Sez Limited v. Karnataka Information Commission

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2025WP/33451/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allowed a writ petition challenging an order by the Karnataka Information Commission directing the petitioner to furnish information. Held that the Commission failed to implead or hear the petitioner to determine if it was a public authority. Quashed the order and directed the Commission to implead the petitioner and conduct a hearing.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 18.04.2017 is quashed. The respondent Warrant to implead the petitioner and hear before passing orders under RTI Act. Petitioner to appear for hearing on 30.09.2025.

M/S. Mangalore Sez Limited Vs Karnataka… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:35908 WP No. 33451 of 2017

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 33451 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. MANGALORE SEZ LIMITED 3^RD FLOOR, MUDA BUILDING, ASHOKNAGAR, URVA STORES, MANGALORE-575 006, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAY KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION "MAHITI SOUDHA", DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, EAST ENTRANCE ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, BY STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

¶15

SRI. ANTONY PINTO FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, AGE - MAJOR, PINTO TOWN, DAMAS KATTE, IKALA POST, MANGALORE-574 141, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶16

PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE-575 001, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:35908 WP No. 33451 of 2017

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MANGALORE-575 001, D.K. DISTRICT.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;

¶23

SRI. SRINIVASA KUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4;

¶24

NOTICE SERVED ON RESPONDENT NO.2 AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.04.2017 PASSED IN KIC 2172 APL 2016 AT ANNEXURE-J BY THE KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION AT BENGALURU, THE FIRST RESPONDENT AND ETC.

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 18.04.2017

¶30

passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.PÀªÀiÁD 2172 J¦J¯ï

¶31

2016 by which, it was directed to furnish information under the

¶32

Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'Act of 2005').

¶33

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35908 WP No. 33451 of 2017

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

(i) The respondent No.2 sought certain information about the petitioner from the office of the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.3. The Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.3 forwarded the request of the respondent No.2 to the petitioner. The petitioner in terms of a communication dated 14.08.2015 informed the Deputy Commissioner/respondent No.3 that it was not a "public authority" and therefore, was not bound to furnish any information.

¶36

(ii) Feeling aggrieved by the said communication, the respondent No.2 filed first appeal under Section 19(1) of the Act of 2005 and when the information was not furnished to him, he filed an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the respondent No.1.

¶37

(iii) The petitioner in terms of its communication addressed to the Deputy Commissioner on 15.04.2017, reiterated its claim that it was not a "public authority" and therefore, it was not governed under the Act of 2005. The respondent No.1 in terms of the impugned order even without arraying the petitioner as a party, directed the petitioner to

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35908 WP No. 33451 of 2017

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

furnish information sought for. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶41

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that information was sought for about the petitioner from the office of the respondent No.3 and when the respondent No.2 had filed an appeal before the respondent No.1, it was incumbent upon him to array the petitioner as party. He contends that the respondent No.1 without even hearing the petitioner had passed the impugned order directing it to furnish information sought for by the respondent No.2. He therefore, contends that the impugned order is liable to be set at naught as the petitioner is not a public authority and it is not bound to comply with the provisions of the Act of 2005.

¶42

Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 submitted that the information sought for by the respondent No.2 was about the petitioner relating to its operation and therefore, the petitioner was bound to furnish the same. He contends that no penalty order is passed under the impugned order and therefore, the petitioner is not affected.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35908 WP No. 33451 of 2017

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

I have considered the submissions of the learned

¶46

counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.1.

¶47

The provisions of the Act of 2005 are applicable only when the authority from whom information is sought for qualifies to be a public authority as defined under the Act of 2005. The respondent No.2 had sought information about the petitioner from respondent No.3. It is not known whether respondent No.3 was the Public Information Officer in respect of the petitioner. There is no notification indicating that the respondent No.3 is the Public Information Officer of the petitioner. The petitioner had informed the respondent No.3 that it is not a public authority and was therefore, not bound to comply with the request of the respondent No.2. When the issue was escalated by the respondent No.2 before the First Appellate Authority and the respondent No.1, it was incumbent upon them to hear the petitioner after arraying it before them and an opportunity must have been given to the petitioner to establish that it was not a public authority and that it was not bound under the provisions of the Act of 2005. The impugned

¶48

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:35908 WP No. 33451 of 2017

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

order also suffers from this defect and hence, the same warrants interference.

¶51

7. Accordingly, the following order is passed:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The petition is allowed .

¶54

(ii) The impugned order dated 18.04.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 in Case No.PÀªÀiÁD 2172 J¦J¯ï 2016 is quashed.

¶55

(iii) The respondent No.1 is directed to implead the petitioner and hear it before passing any orders directing it to furnish information under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶56

(iv) In order to expedite the process, the petitioner shall appear before respondent No.1 on 30.09.2025 at 3.00 p.m.

¶57

Sd/(R. NATARAJ) JUDGE

¶58

PMR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37

M/S. Mangalore Sez Limited v. Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S. Mangalore Sez Limited v. Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

T M Prema, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri K R Ranganath Vs Smt Manjula

Sri C S Umesh Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Mr H Mahesh Vs the Authorised Officer

Sri G a Chandru Vs Chief Conservator of Forest

Rangaiah Vs the State by Government