As per order dated 7-7-2008 the parties were put to notice that petition would be disposed of at the admission stage and the parties were also directed to file brief submissions in support of their contentions. which they have done. However, none appears for respondent No.3. Heard Mr. Dastane, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Sonak, learned Assistant Government. Pleader for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4.

2. Admittedly, the petitioner is Urban Cooperative Bank registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. 1960 (for short Societies Act) and is controlled in respect of certain matters by the, Reserve Bank of India, under Section 110-A of the Societies Act and certain provisions of Banking Regulations Act. Respondent No. 3 is a share holder of the petitioner-Bank. He made two applications before the Bank on different dates seeking certain information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act. 2005. Both the applications were rejected by the petitioner contending that Right to Information Act is not applicable to the petitioner-Bank. however, he could seek information as per the provisions of the Societies Act. In view of this. he preferred two appeals before the Commissioner of Co-operation and Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Pune. As the appeals were dismissed, he preferred second appeal before the Commissioner of State Information. Vidarbha region. The State Commissioner allowed the appeals by impugned order dated 19-10-2007 and directed the petitioner-Bank to supply the information within thirty days and also directed the petitioner to appoint. Information Officer and First Appellate Officer for the said Bank. The directions given by the said Information Commissioner are challenged in the present writ petition.

3. According to the petitioner the Bank is not a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, and therefore, this Act is not applicable to the Bank. It is contended that the learned Information Commissioner has mis-directed himself while holding that because there is public interest in the funds of the Bank, the provisions of the Right to Information Act should be applicable to the Bank:

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner' vehemently relied upon the definitions of the "appropriate Government" and a "public authority" under Section 2(h) to support his contention that the legislature never intended that the co-operative bank, which is not established by the Constitution or Central/State legislation or the notification is" sued by the appropriate Government and it is also not owned or controlled or financed by the Government shall be covered by Right to Information Act. In support of this contention he also placed reliance upon certain authorities from the Supreme Court as also Full Bench of this High Court.

5. To begin with, the preamble of the Right to Information Act states that this Act was enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Section 2(a) defines "appropriate Government as follows :

(a) "appropriate, Government" means in relation to a public authority which is established. Constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly(i) by the Central Government or the Union territory administration, the Central Government;

(ii) by the State Government, the State Government;

In view of this definition the appropriate Government means the Central Government, Union Territory Administration or the State Government depending on as to whether the concerned public authority is established, constituted or controlled or substantially financed, by funds provided directly or indirectly to the Central Government, Union territory or the State Government, Words. "Public Authority" are mate