Bengaluru’s Century Club Built On Land Granted By Maharaja In 1913 | Karnataka High Court Declares It Public Authority Under RTI Act Due To Substantial State Financing
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed a writ petition challenging the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to a registered society that had received a land grant from the erstwhile Maharaja of Mysore. The court held that the grant of 7.5 acres of land in 1913 by the Maharaja of Mysore to the petitioner constituted substantial financing by the State. As a result, the petitioner fell within the definition of a "public authority" under the RTI Act. Consequently, the court upheld the Karnataka Information Commission’s order directing the petitioner to provide the requested information under the RTI framework.
The petitioner, a registered society under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, operates a club established in 1913 on land granted by the then Maharaja of Mysore. The club was originally started by His Highness Maharaja of Mysore Shri Narasimha Raja Wodeyar and Sir M. Visvesvaraya and has since continued its activities on 7.5 acres of land located abutting Cubbon Park, Bengaluru.
Respondent No. 1, a private individual, had submitted an application under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking certified copies of records catalogued and indexed under Section 4(1)(a) and certified under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. The petitioner declined the request, stating through a letter dated 19.11.2012 that it did not fall within the scope of a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act and was therefore not obligated to furnish the information.
Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint with the Karnataka Information Commission (Respondent No. 2) under Section 18(1) of the RTI Act. The Commission registered the complaint as KIC 6921.PTN/2013 and issued notices to the petitioner.
In response, the petitioner argued that it was not a public authority under the Act and that the Karnataka Information Commission lacked jurisdiction. The petitioner further asserted that the land grant from the Maharaja did not amount to substantial financing by the State. The club was financially self-sustained through membership fees and other internal revenue sources.
The Karnataka Information Commission rejected the petitioner’s contentions and, by an order dated 14.03.2018, directed the petitioner to furnish the requested information. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court through the present writ petition.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj considered the limited question of whether the land grant by the Maharaja of Mysore in 1913 could be construed as substantial financing by the State within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The Court acknowledged that the petitioner club was entirely situated on the 7.5 acres of land granted by the Maharaja and that no other land was used by the club.
"Without this land, the very existence of the petitioner club would fall into doubt inasmuch as no activities of the petitioner club could be carried out without this land being available to the petitioner."
While the petitioner submitted that daily activities and expenses were covered through member contributions, the Court maintained: "The fact still remains that without the land, the activities of the petitioner club could not be run."
The Court considered the precedents laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others v. State of Kerala and others (2013) 16 SCC 82. Extracting from that judgment, it noted:
"The word ‘substantial’ literally means solid, massive, etc. The legislature has used the expression ‘substantially financed’ in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii) indicating that the degree of financing must be actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, tolerable, etc."
"Merely providing subsidies, grants, exemptions, privileges, etc. as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist."
Justice Govindaraj further recorded: "The requirements of law not having been established, no direction could have been issued by respondent No. 2" – which was the argument of the petitioner. However, the court disagreed with this contention after evaluating the facts.
The Court also took into account the ratio laid down in DAV College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instruction (2019) 9 SCC 185, stating: "Substantial financing can be both direct or indirect. To give an example, if a land in a city is given free of cost or on heavy discount to hospitals, educational institutions or such other body, this in itself could also be substantial financing."
It was also recorded: "The value of the land will have to be evaluated not only on the date of allotment but even on the date when the question arises as to whether the said body or NGO is substantially financed."
Justice Govindaraj applied this reasoning to the facts of the case and found: "If the valuation of the land of 7.5 acres as on today is taken into consideration, the same would run into hundreds of crores if not thousands, the contribution made by the members of the petitioners-club, as membership fees or any other head of account pales into insignificance."
"It is clearly and categorically established that there is a substantial contribution made by the State, i.e., the erstwhile Kingdom of Mysore, through the Maharaja of Mysore, who granted 7.5 acres of land to the petitioner-club in 1913, thereby making the provisions of the RTI Act applicable."
Justice Suraj Govindaraj issued the following findings and directions in the matter: "I answer the point raised by holding that the grant of land on which the petitioner club is situated would amount to a substantial contribution of financing by the State, made by the then Maharaja of Mysore, for making the RTI Act applicable to the petitioner club."
"No grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed."
Thus, the Karnataka High Court upheld the order passed by the Karnataka Information Commission and confirmed the applicability of the Right to Information Act, 2005, to the petitioner society.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Sri M.S. Rajendra, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri S. Umapathy, Party-in-Person for R1; Sri G.B. Sharath Gowda, Advocate
Case Title: Century Club v. S. Umapathy & Karnataka Information Commission
Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:24838
Case Number: WP No. 13336 of 2018
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj
