BANGALORE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED Vs. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged in this writ petition the order passed by the 1st respondent-Karnataka Information Commissioner dated 14. 05. 2008 as per Annexure-C declaring the petitioner as a 'public Authority' as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act".

(2.) THE petitioner is a public limited company. It is not a Government Company as defined under Section 117 of the Companies Act, 1956. The 2nd respondent herein by name Sri Benson Issac filed an application under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act seeking suo moto publication of the information in respect of the petitioner as provided under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. The petitioner replied stating that it is not a 'public Authority' as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act and hence it was not required to make such a publication under Section 4 (1) (b) of the Act. Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent moved the Karnataka Information Commissioner (for short hereinafter referred as 'kic') under Section 18 of the Act. The said complaint was listed before Sri K. A. Thippeswamy, the State Information Commissioner (for short hereinafter referred to as 'sic') The SIC issued notice to the petitioner seeking its response. SIC was also of the opinion that, the complaint involves question of substantial law, and therefore he ordered that the complaint be posted for further hearing by Full Bench. Thereafter, the State Chief Information Commissioner (for short hereinafter referred to as the 'scic') took up the matter for consideration heard the parties and passed the impugned order holding that petitioner is a 'public Authority' under the Act and therefore he issued directions under the said Act. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner is before this Hon'ble Court.

(3.) SRI R. N. Narasimhamurthy, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that in the first place the impugned order passed is one without jurisdiction as the SCIC had no jurisdiction to decide this matter, when once SIC was of the view that it has to be heard by a Full Bench. He also contended that even on merits the impugned order is unsustainable. Per contra, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent submitted that the SIC has no power to refer the matter to the Full Bench as he has done. In those circumstances, the SCIC was well within his jurisdiction to entertain this matter by himself and pass the impugned order. He also submitted that this question of jurisdiction was never agitated by the petitioner before the SCIC and therefore, they are estopped from challenging the order on that ground before this Court. The learned Government Advocate supported the impugned order.