Times of India: Bengaluru: Wednesday, 13Th
August 2025.
The Karnataka high court
has ruled that Nirmiti Kendra, established by the state govt and controlled by
govt officers, qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right
to Information Act. Additionally, it imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on the
petitioner, Nirmiti Kendra at Medahalli in Chitradurga, for its refusal to
disclose information.
The Nirmiti Kendra had moved the HC against the State Information Commission's Aug 29, 2017 order to provide information sought by applicant HR Thimmaiah, the president of Bharath Krishik Samaj, Hiriyur, Chitradurga district. The information commission had also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the kendra.
The Medahalli Nimriti Kendra refused to furnish information, arguing that as it was not a public authority, it was not subject to the RTI Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the rural development and panchayath raj department initiated the establishment of Nirmiti Kendras with funding from HUDCO and a govt order sanctioned the setup of seven such kendras.
He pointed out that the chief executive officer of the zilla panchayat serves as the chairman of the governing body, and records show that Nirmiti Kendras are under the control and supervision of govt officers. Funding originates from HUDCO, a govt entity, and govt contracts are issued for works undertaken by the kendras, which prioritise govt projects.
"In that view of the matter, the finding and conclusion of the Karnataka Information Commission and the direction issued to furnish the document sought cannot be faulted. It is not expected of a governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmiti Kendra, who are govt officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmiti Kendra would not come within the purview of the RTI Act. All the govt offices and departments are subject to the RTI Act and are required to make available the information sought," ruled the HC.
"The attempt made by the officers to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, Nirmiti Kendra avoided the disclosure of information. I'm of the opinion that the costs would also have to be imposed on Nirmiti Kendra," Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted.
The Nirmiti Kendra had moved the HC against the State Information Commission's Aug 29, 2017 order to provide information sought by applicant HR Thimmaiah, the president of Bharath Krishik Samaj, Hiriyur, Chitradurga district. The information commission had also imposed a penalty of Rs 25,000 on the kendra.
The Medahalli Nimriti Kendra refused to furnish information, arguing that as it was not a public authority, it was not subject to the RTI Act.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted that the rural development and panchayath raj department initiated the establishment of Nirmiti Kendras with funding from HUDCO and a govt order sanctioned the setup of seven such kendras.
He pointed out that the chief executive officer of the zilla panchayat serves as the chairman of the governing body, and records show that Nirmiti Kendras are under the control and supervision of govt officers. Funding originates from HUDCO, a govt entity, and govt contracts are issued for works undertaken by the kendras, which prioritise govt projects.
"In that view of the matter, the finding and conclusion of the Karnataka Information Commission and the direction issued to furnish the document sought cannot be faulted. It is not expected of a governmental authority and the officers of the Nirmiti Kendra, who are govt officers, to have taken such a stand that a Nirmiti Kendra would not come within the purview of the RTI Act. All the govt offices and departments are subject to the RTI Act and are required to make available the information sought," ruled the HC.
"The attempt made by the officers to suppress such transparency leaves much to be desired and does not inspire confidence. By way of such conduct, Nirmiti Kendra avoided the disclosure of information. I'm of the opinion that the costs would also have to be imposed on Nirmiti Kendra," Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted.
.JPG)
.JPG)
