IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.3462 OF 2018 (GM – RES) BETWEEN:
BANGALORE TURF CLUB LIMITED A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT P.O. BOX NO.5038, RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. PRADEEP KUMAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SRIRANGA.S., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION M.S. BUILDING, 3RD FLOOR, 3RD STAGE AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, NEAR VIDHANA SOUDHA SAMPANGIRAM NAGAR BENGALURU-560 001.
2. SRI L. GURULINGAIAH S/O. LATE SRI. L.A. LINGEGOWDA AGE 62 YEARS RESIDING AT LAKKAPPANAHALLI RAMANAGAR TALUK RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 159. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI RAJASHEKAR.K, ADV., FOR R1; SRI L. SHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2 ABSENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 23.10.2017 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN KIC 454 APL 2017 (ANNEXURE-L), AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Sri.Sriranga.S, learned counsel for petitioner.
Sri.Rajashekhar.K, learned counsel for respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 23.1.2017 passed by Karnataka Information Commission.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this petition briefly stated are that, the petitioner is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and engaged in the business inter alia of conducting, holding and promoting race meetings, etc. Respondent No.2 filed an application before respondent No.1 seeking information under Section 6 of the Right to Information of Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), on 25.10.2016. The petitioner not being a public authority did not furnish the information as sought for by respondent No.2. Thereupon, respondent No.2 filed an appeal before the Chairman, Bangalore Turf Club under Section 19(1) of the Act. Respondent No.2 preferred Second appeal on 3.1.2017 before the Karnataka Information Commission under Section 19(3) of the Act. The petitioner filed detailed statement of objections before the Karnataka Information Commission and pointed out that it is not a public authority and therefore is not amenable to jurisdiction of the Act. However, respondent No.1-Commission by the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 has directed the petitioner to furnish information to respondent No.2 within 15 days. In the aforesaid facts and background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while inviting the attention of this Court to the order dated 16.09.2006 passed by the Karnataka Information Commission submitted that by the aforesaid order, the Commission itself had held that the petitioner is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act. However, subsequently, the impugned order has been passed. It is also submitted that the order dated 16.09.2006 is binding on the Commission and contrary order could not have been passed subsequently. It is further submitted that detailed objections filed by the petitioner in support of its contention that it is not a public authority as defined under the Act has been considered while passing the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.1, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner is the public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. However, it was fairly conceded by learned counsel for respondent No.1 that objection of the petitioner that it is not a public authority and is not amenable to the jurisdiction of the Act while passing the impugned order. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 also did not dispute the fact that the order dated 16.09.2006 has attained finality.
6. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
7. Admittedly, by order dated 19.06.2006, the Karnataka Information Commission has held the petitioner to be not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. Aforesaid order has attained finality. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF KERALA –vs- M.K.KUHIKANNAN NAMBIAR MANJERI AND OTHERS (reported in (1996)1 SCC 435) has held that any order passed earlier between inter parties is binding on the parties until and unless it is successfully challenged in a higher Forum.
8. Admittedly, in the instant case, respondent No.1 has not challenged the order dated 16.09.2006 in a higher Forum. Therefore, in view of aforesaid enunciation of law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the order dated 16.09.2006 is binding on the parties.
9. In view of the order dated 16.09.2006, the impugned order dated 23.10.2017 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. Hence, it is accordingly quashed.
In the result, the petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE ln.