Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Karnataka Single Bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj has held that Nirmiti Kendra qualifies as a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and is therefore subject to its provisions. The Court dismissed the petition challenging an order of the Karnataka State Information Commission directing disclosure of information and imposing a penalty. In its final order, the Court upheld the Commission's findings, directed the petitioner to furnish the requested information, and imposed costs of Rs.50,000 to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within three weeks.

The petitioner, identified as the Public Information Officer and Project Director of Nirmiti Kendra, Chitradurga District, sought relief under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to quash the Karnataka State Information Commission's order dated 29 August 2017 in KIC 13961 APL 2015. The impugned order had directed the petitioner to furnish certain information sought by the third respondent under the RTI Act and imposed a penalty of Rs.25,000.

Also Read: Jail Official Found Guilty Of Orchestrating Escape Plot | Supreme Court Says Actions Showed Conscious Participation And Unity Of Design In Conspiracy To Free Undertrial

Nirmiti Kendra, as stated by the petitioner, is registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and operates under its own governing body. It was claimed that the organisation is a private society, not financed or aided by the State or Central Government, and thus does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act.

Senior Counsel for the petitioner argued that the endorsement issued by Nirmiti Kendra in response to the third respondent's application was valid and that the State Information Commissioner erred in directing disclosure and imposing the penalty. The counsel maintained that as Nirmiti Kendra is not a "public authority," it is not required to provide information under the RTI Act.

The third respondent, represented by counsel, contended that Nirmiti Kendra was established to carry out activities on behalf of the State and is controlled or substantially financed by the Government. It was submitted that the Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department had proposed the setting up of Nirmiti Kendras in several centres, with funding from HUDCO under a specific scheme. The Government order for establishment involved assistance from Karnataka Land Army Corporation and other technical bodies. The respondent also stated that the governance structure of Nirmiti Kendra is composed predominantly of government officers, and its funding sources include grants from the Government of India and State Government, thereby meeting the criteria of a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Further, it was argued that Nirmiti Kendra performs governmental functions, particularly in low-cost housing development, and operates under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary of the Zilla Panchayath. Special audits by the Principal Accountant General, Karnataka, were cited as evidence of governmental oversight.

The fourth respondent adopted the submissions of the third respondent, adding that Nirmiti Kendra manages large amounts of public funds and that denial of its status as a public authority would subvert the transparency objectives of the RTI Act. Reference was made to the Supreme Court's decision in D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, stating that substantial government funding suffices to bring an organisation under the RTI Act's purview.

The Court noted that the central question for determination was whether Nirmiti Kendra is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It recorded that Nirmiti Kendras were established pursuant to a Government initiative by the Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department after detailed discussions and planning. Funds for the project were drawn from HUDCO grants under its scheme for setting up such centres.

The Court reproduced in detail the Government's proceedings and orders from 1988 and 1990, which outlined the establishment of Nirmiti Kendras at seven locations, including Chitradurga. These orders specified the purpose, governance structure, technical partnerships, and funding sources, demonstrating direct governmental involvement.

In relation to governance, the Court observed: "The general body of the Nirmiti Kendra consists of all the top officers of each District, and the day-to-day activities of the Nirmiti Kendra are run by officers belonging to the State Government, many of whom belong to the Indian Administrative Service and the Karnataka Administrative Service. Thus, it is clear that Nirmiti Kendra is under the complete control of Government servants."

Regarding funding, the Court recorded: "The funding is by HUDCO, Government organisations, and financial institutions, and these funds are used for the implementation of public works. Thus, not only is the funding provided by the Government, but the works carried out by Nirmiti Kendra are also considered Government works."

The Court stated that Section 2(h) includes bodies that are either controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government, and that Nirmiti Kendra meets both criteria.

It further noted: "It is not expected of a Governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmiti Kendra, who are Government officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmiti Kendra would not come within the purview of the RTI Act. All the Government offices and Departments are subject to RTI Act and are required to make available the information sought for."

The Court criticised the petitioner’s conduct, stating: "The attempt made by the officers of Nirmiti Kendra to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, the petitioner Nirmiti Kendra has successfully avoided disclosure of information and details."

Also Read: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Civil Suit For Death Certificate Name Correction | Only Registrar Has Power Under Section 15 Of Births And Deaths Act

Concluding its analysis, the Court held: "A Nirmiti Kendra would be a public authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act." It affirmed the Karnataka Information Commission's order directing disclosure of the requested documents and upheld the penalty imposed.

The writ petition was dismissed, with the Court stating: "In view of my finding, no grounds being made out, the petition stands dismissed by imposing a cost of Rs.50,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, Senior Advocate for Sri. Rahul P., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. M. Srinivas Kumar, HCGP for R2; Sri. Rajashekar K., Advocate; Sri. J. Prashanth, Advocate; Sri. Amruthesh N., Advocate

Case Title: PIO & Project Director, Nirmiti Kendra v. State Information Commissioner & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: KHC:30716

Case Number: WP No. 52581 of 2017

Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj