Dismissed¶¶41

Smt Deepa Malini Devi v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Mar 2026WA/702/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru CJ, C.M. Poonacha J) dismisses WA 702/2026 challenging disposal of WP 5093/2026; Single Judge's reservation of appellant's right to seek Mysore Palace Board records (service record of Deputy Director, contracts, accounts) under RTI Act 2005 upheld; no other statute identified entitling appellant to documents; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

The learned Single Judge rightly disposed of the petition by reserving the petitioner's right to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005; if such an application is made, it would be considered in accordance with law. ¶¶38

Smt Deepa Malini Devi Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:13196-DB WA No. 702 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶8

AND

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶10

WRIT APPEAL NO. 702 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

Digitally signed by NIRMALA DEVI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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, MYSURU 570 002. …APPELLANT

¶14

(BY SRI. ARAVIND REDDY H, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF KANNADA AND CULTURE, ROOM NO.3, GROUND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001.

¶17

SRI T. S. SUBRAMANYA, S/O LATE T.S. SRINIVASA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY DIRECTOR,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13196-DB WA No. 702 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

MYSORE PALACE BOARD, THE MYSORE PALACE, MYSURU - 570001.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B G, AGA FOR R1)

¶23

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 20/02/2026 PASSED IN WP NO.5093/2026 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION AS PRAYED AND ETC.

¶24

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶26

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶27

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶28

The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5093 of 2026 (GM-RES).

¶29

The learned Single Judge disposed of the said writ petition with liberty to the appellant to file an application with respondent No.1 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [ Act ]. However, the learned Single Judge clarified that the Court had not expressed

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13196-DB WA No. 702 of 2026

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

any opinion whether such information is liable to be furnished under the said Act.

¶33

The appellant claims to be the grand-daughter of the Late Maharaja Jayachamarajendra Wadiyar. She had filed the said petition inter alia stating that after the enactment of the Mysore Palace (Acquisition and Transfer) Act, 1998, the Mysore Palace was managed as a public trust and heritage monument. She claimed that after takeover of the Mysore Palace, the management was opaque and there was no financial transparency in the functioning of the Mysore Palace Board.

¶34

In the aforesaid context, the appellant sought for various documents including the service record of respondent No.2 functioning as Deputy Director for the Mysore Palace Board; delegation of financial and administrative powers delegated to others; certified copies of all major contracts; procurements or agreements entered into by the Board during respondent No.2's term as a Deputy Director; complete financial record and accounts regarding the revenue and expenditure during the said term of respondent No.2.

¶35

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:13196-DB WA No. 702 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

The learned counsel for the appellant is unable to refer to any statute, other that the Right to Information Act, 2005, under which the appellant is entitled to the copy of the documents as sought for.

¶38

In view of the above, the learned Single Judge has rightly disposed of the petition by reserving the petitioner, the right to apply under the Right to Information Act, 2005. Needless to state that if such an application is made, the same would be considered in accordance with law.

¶39