Bms Educational Trust Vs Karnataka Information Commission

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 6391 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BMS EDUCATIONAL TRUST POST BOX NO.1908, B.M.S. COLLGE OF ENGINEERING BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 019 REPRESENTED BY ITS DONOR TRUSTEE SMT. RAGINI NARAYAN

¶8

BMS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT POST BOX NO.1908, B.M.S. COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING BULL TEMPLE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 019 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRI. JAIRAJ

¶9

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

(BY SRI. BHARATH S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION 204, 2^ND FLOOR, MAHITHI SOUDHA DEVARAJ URS ROAD, OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA, WEST GATE-02, BENGALURU - 560 001, RPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISISONER.

¶14

KUMARI SAVITHA M. MAJOR, R/AT 7/2A, 3-A CROSS

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

NEAR OLD OIL MILL ROAD, M.M. LAYOUT, KAVALBYRASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 032.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. G.B. SHARATH GOWDA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. P.V. KALPANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 11/12.10.2017 BEARING KIC NO.5506 APL 2015, KIC NO.5509 APL 2015, KIC NO.5510 APL 2015, KIC NO.5511 APL 2015 AND KIC NO.5513 APL 2015 AT ANNEXURE-G1 TO G5 AND ETC.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Petitioners are before this Court being aggrieved by the

¶26

orders produced at Annexure-G series in terms of which respondent No.1-Information Commissioner has called upon the petitioner to furnish consolidated audit report for 3 previous consecutive years and also to show cause why a sum of Rs.25,000/- penalty not be imposed in the event of failure to comply with said orders.

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The impugned orders emanates in the light of the application filed by respondent No.2 seeking certain information under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'RTI Act'), which are extracted in paragraph No.3 of the petition.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners taking this Court thorough the records, submits that the petitioner is a trust being run on its own without any aid or assistance from whomsoever much less from the Government. Therefore, it does not come within the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. The contention of the petitioners thereafter is that the petitioner need not obligated to furnish or divulge such information inasmuch as the petitioner is a private trust.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits upon

¶32

receipt of the notice from the first respondent, it had filed a detailed statement of objection on 12.10.2015. That the impugned orders have been passed on 11/12.10.2017 without even considering the statement of objection filed by the petitioners. He submits that the impugned orders calling

¶33

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

upon the petitioners to furnish the information is one without

¶36

authority. As the burden of proving petitioners being institutions coming within the purview of the Act is on the applicant or the first respondent-Information Officer and not on the petitioners. In justification of his submission he placed reliance upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and others V/s. State of Kerala and others reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82 and

¶37

submits that the impugned orders are unsustainable and requires to be quashed.

¶38

In response, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1, taking this Court through the records, submits that the impugned notices have been issued taking into consideration the specific stand taken by the petitioners in its statement of objection, which are extracted at para-5 of

¶39

the impugned communications. Since the petitioners has refused and declined to give the information as sought for by respondent No.2 on the premise of petitioners not falling within the ambit of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, it was

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

necessary for petitioners to have justified the said stand. Therefore, the respondent No.1 has by the impugned communication called upon the petitioners to furnish the consolidated audit reports. As regards the allegation of imposition of Rs.25,000/- fine, he submits no order of that

¶43

nature has been passed except calling upon the petitioner show cause why such orders should not be passed.

¶44

Heard. Perused the records.

¶45

The only contention which is urged by the

¶46

petitioner is that it is a private institute, not coming within the purview of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, inasmuch as it is neither controlled nor financed / aided by the State Authorities. The impugned communication indicates that such a stand taken by the petitioners in their statement of objection has been extracted and it is only in furtherance thereof, petitioners has been called upon to furnish consolidated audit report for 3 years.

¶47

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Reliance placed by the learned counsel for

¶50

petitioner to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Talapalam Service Cooperative Society (supra) , wherein

¶51

in paragraph Nos.50 and 51 Apex Court has held as under:-

¶52

50. The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a nongovernment organisation is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission, as the case may be, when the question comes up for consideration. A body or NGO is also free to establish that it is not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government.

¶53

51. The powers have been conferred on the Central Information Commissioner or the State Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act to inquire into any complaint received from any person and the reason for the refusal to access to any information requested from a body owned, controlled or substantially financed, or a nongovernment organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. Section 19 of the Act provides for an appeal against the decision of the Central Information Officer or the State Information Officer to such officer who is senior in rank to the Central Information Officer or the State Information Officer, as the case may be, in each public authority. Therefore, there is an inbuilt mechanism in the Act itself to examine whether a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or an NGO is substantially

¶54

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

financed, directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the appropriate authority.

¶57

Though at first part of paragraph No.50 of the

¶58

aforesaid judgment indicate that the burden to show the body is owned, controlled, substantially financed or that a non-government organization is on the applicant who seeks information, the second part of the said paragraph also provides that a body or NGO is also free to establish that it is not owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government. Paragraph No.51 further makes it clear, in any event, the State Information Commissioner under Section 18 of the Act is required to make an inquiry with regard to the complaint received by a person

¶59

and the reason for refusal to access to any information requested from the body owned, controlled or substantially financed etc.

¶60

Read in the light of the aforesaid judgment of the

¶61

Apex Court, the impugned communication would only indicate that the same are issued in furtherance to Section 18 of the

¶62

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:11064 WP No. 6391 of 2018

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

Act inquiring into the reason / cause for refusal. The same therefore cannot be found to be illegal or unsustainable.

¶65

As such petitioners are directed to comply with the

¶66

impugned communication as called upon the petitioners to furnish the audited report / the details within 30 days and the information officers shall proceed to pass appropriate order in accordance with law. Petition is disposed of

¶67

accordingly.

¶68

Sd/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶69

LDC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Bms Educational Trust v. Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bms Educational Trust v. Karnataka Information Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri S Chandrakar Vs Shri R Margabhandhu

Syed Akmal Pasha Vs Smt. Shakeera Begum Since Deceased by Her Lr'S Sri. Ameer Hussain

S G Ramachandrappa Vs D Ramachandrappa

Sri.C. Venkateshalu Vs Karnataka State Financial Corporation

Sri K Murali Vs State of Karnataka

Sri T M Dileep Kumar Vs M/S.Bindu Promoters and Developers