Karnataka High Court: In a writ petition filed by the Nirmithi Kendra, challenging an order by the State Information Commissioner that directed them to furnish information under Right to Information Act, 2005 (‘RTI Act’) while imposing a penalty, a Single-Judge Bench of Suraj Govindaraj, J., held that Nirmithi Kendra is a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and is liable to furnish information. The Court observed that the Nirmithi Kendras were established by a Government Order, its governing body consisted of government officials, and it received government funding, making it subject to the RTI Act.
Background
Nirmithi Kendra is a society registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, and is governed by the Rules and Regulations of the Societies Registration Act. The object of the Nirmithi Kendra is to develop skills in the construction area and carry out the civil contract/s assigned by the State and is governed by its own governing body.
An application was submitted by one of the respondents for obtaining some information which was denied by Nirmithi Kendra with an endorsement that it is not a Public Authority under the RTI Act. This led to the State Information Commissioner directing Nirmithi Kendra to furnish the requested information and imposing a penalty of Rs. 25,000. Nirmithi Kendra challenged this order by filing the present writ petition.
Issue
Whether the Nirmithi Kendra would be a Public Authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005?
Analysis And Decision
The Court after perusing Section 2(h) of the RTI Act noted that it is not only funding, but also control, which would have to be considered to determine whether a body is a public authority or not.
The Court noted that the constitution of the Nirmithi Kendra, though as a Society, was in terms of a direction issued by the Government of Karnataka. After perusing the proceeding held in this connection, the Court noted that firstly, that the initiative to establish the Nirmithi Kendra was taken up by the Rural Development and Panchayath Raj Department. The objects of the same were discussed and finalised. Funds for the project were to be drawn from HUDCO. In pursuance thereof, a Government Order was issued whereunder a sanction was granted for setting up of seven Nirmithi Kendras, including the petitioner. A working group was appointed by the government to supervise and oversee the progress and programs of the Nirmithi Kendra. The Court further noted that the general body of the Nirmithi Kendra consists of all the top officers of each District, and the day-to-day activities of the Nirmithi Kendra are run by officers belonging to the State Government, many of whom belong to the Indian Administrative Service and the Karnataka Administrative Service. The Court observed that Nirmithi Kendra is under the complete control of Government servants.
As far as the funding is concerned, the Court observed that the funding was by HUDCO, Government organisations, and financial institutions, and these funds are used for the implementation of public works. Thus, not only was the funding provided by the Government, but the works carried out by Nirmithi Kendra were also considered Government works.
For the afore-stated reasons, the Court held that Nirmithi Kendra is a public authority in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
The Court also noted that is not expected from governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmithi Kendra, who are Government officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmithi 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 attempt by Nirmithi Kendra to suppress such transparency did not inspire confidence. The Court, hence, imposed Rs. 50,000 payable to Karnataka State Legal Service Authority.
[PIO and Project Director Nirmithi Kendra v. State Information Commissioner, 2025 SCC OnLine Kar 17662, decided on 06-08-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Jayakumar S. Patil., Sr. Advocate for Rahul.P
For the Respondent: M. Srinivas Kumar., HCGP for R 2, Rajashekar K., Advocate for R 1, J. Prashanth., Advocate for R 3, Amruthesh.N., Advocate for R 4
