Shivanna Naik Vs. Bangalore University, Jnana Bharathi and anr. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
karnataka right to information act, 2000-section 2(c)-karnataka university act, 1976-sections 2(9), 3-constitution of india-article 12-'authority'-application seeking details rejected on the ground that there is no provision to furnish the documents under the bangalore university regulations-rejection order challenged-held-the university is an 'authority' as defined under section 2(c) of the karnataka right to information act, 2000. when the university is considered as an authority within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution, the right to information act is also applicable to the university and it is bound to supply information as per the right to information act. since the application filed by the petitioner is rejected by the respondent on the ground that the act itself cannot be made applicable, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition must be allowed. (para 5) - labour & services wage revision: [s.n. sathyanarayana,j] benefit of wage increase given to petitioners pursuant to recommendation of third tripartite committee - respondent company voluntarily extended the benefit of wage increase to its employees including the petitioners - petitioners have not made any misrepresentations and there is no fraud on the part f the petitioners - subsequently, notice of recovery issued to the petitioners, on the ground that the benefit of wage increase does not enure to their benefit - legality of the recovery proceedings being challenge held, the petitioners herein have not secured the benefit of higher wages either by fraud or misrepresentation. the respondent has voluntarily extended the benefit of increased wages on the recommendation of tripartite committee for sugar industries, which is continued for a period of 10 years to the petitioners, cannot be recovered now under the impugned notices annexed to their petitions. however, it is open for the respondent to withdraw the same prospectively after giving notices to the petitioners and after giving opportunity of hearing to them before refixing the salary withdrawing the wage increase extended to them under office order dated 08-10-1996. accordingly, the impugned notices are quashed. - bangalore university (supra) a division bench of this court clearly held that 'a university is an authority with in the meaning of article 12 of the constitution;orderk.l. manjunath, j.1. the 1st respondent university issued a notification dated 15-11-2001 inviting applications for the post of lecturers in law. the petitioner was one of the applicants. according to him he belongs to schedule caste. though he was eligible, his application was not considered by the respondent-university and selected another person under the backlog vacancy. in the circumstances, the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent, submitted an application requisition the respondent to furnish the details' as per the provisions of the karnataka right to information act, 2000, which application has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision to furnish the documents under the bangalore university regulations. being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the registrar, which appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable as per annexure-'f' dated 16-12-2003. being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed requesting this court to direct the respondent to issue a writ of mandamus to furnish the details as sought for by the petitioner under right to information act.2. respondents have filed a detailed counter. according to them the respondent-university will not come under the purview of the karnataka right to information act, 2000. therefore it is contended that the present petition has to be dismissed.3. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties. according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the university could not have rejected the application filed by him under the karnataka right to information act, 2000. since, the university falls under the definition of article 12 of the constitution of india and also falls under the definition of public authority as defined under section 2(c) of the karnataka right to information act, 2000. in support of his submission he has also relied upon the judgment of this court, g.v. sundaresh v. bangalore university, 1967 mysore law journal. relying upon this judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner requests this court to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.4. per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent-university contends that under the regulations of the bangalore university, certain documents cannot be furnished to the petitioner contending that they are privileged documents. but unfortunately, the university has not rejected the application on the said ground. what is contended by the university is that the karnataka right to information act, 2000 cannot be made applicable to the bangalore university. therefore in this background what is required to be considered by this court in this writ petition is whether the bangalore university conies under the purview of the karnataka right to information act, 2000.section 2(c) of the karnataka right to information act, 2000 reads as hereunder:'public authority means,-(i) all offices of the state government including the karnataka public service commission;(ii) all local authorities, all authorities constituted by or under any act of the state legislature for the time being in force, a company, corporation, trust, society, any statutory or other authority, co-operative society or any organisation or body funded, owned or controlled by the state government.but does not include,-(i) offices of the central government;(ii) any establishment of the armed for us or central para military forces;(iii) any body or corporation owned or controlled by the central government.the bangalore university is also established in karnataka under the provisions of the karnataka state universities act, 1976. the university is defined under section 2(9) of the karnataka universities act, 1976 as hereunder:'university' means a university established and incorporated under section 3 of the act.section 3 of the act reads as hereunder establishment and incorporation of universities.-(1) there shall be established, with effect on and from the appointed date, the following universities, namely:(a) the bangalore university with headquarters at bangalore and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of bangalore, kolar and tumkur;(b) the karnataka university with headquarters at dharwad and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of belgaum, bellary, bidar, bijapur, dharwad, gulbarga, uttar kannada and raichur;(c) the mysore university with headquarters at mysore and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of chickmagalore, chitradurga, kodagu, hassan, mandya, mysore, dakshina kannada and shimoga.(1a) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), on and from the date of commencement of the amendment act,-(a) the karnataka university shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of bellary, bidar, gulbarga and raichur;(b) the mysore university shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of dakshina kannada and kodagu;(c) there shall be established the following universities, namely:(i) the gulbarga university with headquarters at gulbarga and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of bellary, bidar, gulbarga and raichur;(ii) the mangalore university with headquarters at konaje and jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of dakshina kannada and kodagu;'(1b) notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), on and from the date of commencement of the karnataka state universities (amendment) act, 1987,-(a) the mysore university shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of shimoga, chitradurga and chickmagalur;(b) there shall be established the kuvempu university with headquarters at bhadra reservoir project area, shimoga and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of shimoga, chitradurga and chickmagalur.'2(i) the chancellor, the vice-chancellor and members of the senate, the syndicate and the academic council of the university shall constitute a body corporate by the name of the university specified in sub-section (1) and sub-section (1a) and (1b).(ii) each of the said university shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and may, by its name, sue and be sued.(3) the university shall be competent to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which may have become vested in or been acquired by it, for the purposes of the university and to contract an to do all other things necessary for the purposes of this act.(4) in all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the university, the pleading shall be signed and verified by, and all processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and be served on, the registrar.by a combined reading of section 2(c) of the karnataka right to information act, 2000 and section 2(9) and section 3 of the karnataka university act, 1976, it is clear that a university is 'an authority' within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution. in the case of g.v. sundaresh v. bangalore university (supra) a division bench of this court clearly held that 'a university is an authority with in the meaning of article 12 of the constitution; and ordinances, or statutes or regulations framed by a university must conform to the principles of fundamental rights laid down in part iii of the constitution'.5. therefore, this court is of the opinion that the university is 'an authority' as defined under section 2(c) of the karnataka right to information act, 2000. when the university is considered as an authority within the meaning of article 12 of the constitution, the right to information act is also applicable to the university and it is bound to supply information as per the right to information act. since the application filed by the petitioner is rejected by the respondent on the ground that the act itself cannot be made applicable, this court is of the opinion that the writ petition must be allowed, directing the petitioner to file fresh application and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.6. in the result the writ petition is allowed. petitioner is permitted to file fresh application under the karnataka right to information act, 2000. if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent in accordance with law within the time prescribed under the right to information act.

Judgment:
ORDER

K.L. Manjunath, J.

1. The 1st respondent University issued a Notification dated 15-11-2001 inviting applications for the post of Lecturers in Law. The petitioner was one of the applicants. According to him he belongs to Schedule Caste. Though he was eligible, his application was not considered by the respondent-University and selected another person under the backlog vacancy. In the circumstances, the petitioner aggrieved by the action of the respondent, submitted an application requisition the respondent to furnish the details' as per the provisions of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000, which application has been rejected on the ground that there is no provision to furnish the documents under the Bangalore University Regulations. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Registrar, which appeal is also dismissed as not maintainable as per Annexure-'F' dated 16-12-2003. Being aggrieved by the said order, the present petition is filed requesting this Court to direct the respondent to issue a writ of mandamus to furnish the details as sought for by the petitioner under Right to Information Act.

2. Respondents have filed a detailed counter. According to them the respondent-University will not come under the purview of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. Therefore it is contended that the present petition has to be dismissed.

3. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties. According to the Learned Counsel for the petitioner, the University could not have rejected the application filed by him under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. Since, the University falls under the definition of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and also falls under the definition of Public Authority as defined under Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. In support of his submission he has also relied upon the Judgment of this Court, G.V. Sundaresh v. Bangalore University, 1967 Mysore Law Journal. Relying upon this judgment, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to allow the writ petition by quashing the impugned order.

4. Per contra, the Learned Counsel for the respondent-university contends that under the regulations of the Bangalore University, certain documents cannot be furnished to the petitioner contending that they are privileged documents. But unfortunately, the University has not rejected the application on the said ground. What is contended by the University is that the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 cannot be made applicable to the Bangalore University. Therefore in this background what is required to be considered by this Court in this writ petition is whether the Bangalore University conies under the purview of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000.

Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 reads as hereunder:

'Public authority means,-

(i) all offices of the State Government including the Karnataka Public Service Commission;

(ii) all local authorities, all authorities constituted by or under any Act of the State Legislature for the time being in force, a Company, Corporation, trust, society, any statutory or other authority, Co-operative society or any organisation or body funded, owned or controlled by the State Government.

but does not include,-

(i) offices of the Central Government;

(ii) any establishment of the armed for us or Central Para Military forces;

(iii) any body or corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government.

The Bangalore University is also established in Karnataka under the provisions of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976. The University is defined under Section 2(9) of the Karnataka Universities Act, 1976 as hereunder:

'University' means a University established and incorporated under Section 3 of the Act.

Section 3 of the Act reads as hereunder Establishment and incorporation of Universities.-

(1) There shall be established, with effect on and from the appointed date, the following Universities, namely:

(a) The Bangalore University with headquarters at Bangalore and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Bangalore, Kolar and Tumkur;

(b) the Karnataka University with headquarters at Dharwad and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Belgaum, Bellary, Bidar, Bijapur, Dharwad, Gulbarga, Uttar Kannada and Raichur;

(c) the Mysore University with headquarters at Mysore and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Chickmagalore, Chitradurga, Kodagu, Hassan, Mandya, Mysore, Dakshina Kannada and Shimoga.

(1A) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), on and from the date of commencement of the Amendment Act,-

(a) the Karnataka University shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Bellary, Bidar, Gulbarga and Raichur;

(b) the Mysore University shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu;

(c) there shall be established the following Universities, namely:

(i) the Gulbarga University with headquarters at Gulbarga and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Bellary, Bidar, Gulbarga and Raichur;

(ii) the Mangalore University with headquarters at Konaje and jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Dakshina Kannada and Kodagu;

'(1B) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sub-section (1), on and from the date of commencement of the Karnataka State Universities (Amendment) Act, 1987,-

(a) the Mysore University shall cease to have territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Shimoga, Chitradurga and Chickmagalur;

(b) there shall be established the Kuvempu University with headquarters at Bhadra Reservoir Project Area, Shimoga and territorial jurisdiction over the area comprising the districts of Shimoga, Chitradurga and Chickmagalur.'

2(i) The Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor and members of the senate, the Syndicate and the Academic Council of the University shall constitute a body corporate by the name of the University specified in Sub-section (1) and Sub-section (1A) and (1B).

(ii) Each of the said University shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and may, by its name, sue and be sued.

(3) The University shall be Competent to acquire and hold property, both movable and immovable, to lease, sell or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property which may have become vested in or been acquired by it, for the purposes of the University and to contract an to do all other things necessary for the purposes of this Act.

(4) In all suits and other legal proceedings by or against the University, the pleading shall be signed and verified by, and all processes in such suits and proceedings shall be issued to and be served on, the Registrar.

By a combined reading of Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000 and Section 2(9) and Section 3 of the Karnataka University Act, 1976, it is clear that a University is 'an authority' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In the case of G.V. Sundaresh v. Bangalore University (Supra) a Division Bench of this Court clearly held that 'A University is an authority with in the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution; and Ordinances, or statutes or Regulations framed by a University must conform to the principles of Fundamental Rights laid down in Part III of the Constitution'.

5. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the University is 'an authority' as defined under Section 2(c) of the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. When the University is considered as an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, the Right to Information Act is also applicable to the University and it is bound to supply information as per the Right to Information Act. Since the application filed by the petitioner is rejected by the respondent on the ground that the Act itself cannot be made applicable, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition must be allowed, directing the petitioner to file fresh application and if such an application is filed, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.

6. In the result the writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is permitted to file fresh application under the Karnataka Right to Information Act, 2000. If such an application is filed, the same shall be considered by the respondent in accordance with law within the time prescribed under the Right to Information Act.