1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the parties.

2. This writ petition is preferred by the Trust against the order passed by the State Information Commissioner as well as the Information Officer.

3. A few facts may be stated as follows -

Respondent no.3 claims to be a disciple of Sadguru Pralhad Maharaj. There is a trust known as Shree Govind Ramnand Samarth Sadguru Pralhad Maharaj (Ramdasi) Sansthan. The petitioner is the Chief Trustee of the said trust. Respondent no.3 made an application to the said trust to supply certain information to him under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner trustee informed to respondent no.3 that information being confidential cannot be supplied. Respondent no.3, therefore, preferred an appeal to the Information Officer i.e. the Charity Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner ordered upon payment of fees the information to be supplied. The petitioner, therefore, preferred second appeal to the State Information Commissioner at Nagpur. The State Information Commissioner rejected the appeal. Hence this writ petition.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

5. It is not necessary to go into the question as to what information was sought from the trust at all. The only contention of the petitioner is that Right to Information Act itself is not applicable to it and both authorities fell in error in directing the information to be supplied. The State Commissioner has refused to entertain this plea on the ground that it was not raised before the first appellate authority. The question related to the legality of the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to take cognizance of the appeal. It should have, therefore, dealt with the contention. Be that as it may.

6. We have therefore now to consider the question if a public trust registered under the Public Trust Act and Societies Act is governed by the Right to Information Act. A public trust to my mind cannot certainly be said to be falling within meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is neither a local authority or other authority of India or an authority under the control of Government. It is not disputed that the present public trust is not provided any sort of grant by the Government. The only exception would, however, be the trust created by the Government and financed by the Government. A Public Trust has been defined in Section 2 of sub-Section 13 of the Bombay Public Trust Act as follows -

“Public Trust” means an express or constructive trust for either religious or charitable purpose or both and includes a temple, a math, [church, synagogue, agiary or other place of public religious worship] [a dharmada or any other religious or charitable endowment and a society formed either for a religious or charitable purpose or for both and registered under the Societies Registration Act,

1860 (XXI of 1860).

7. A trust is thus established for religious and charitable purpose. It is created upon dedication of certain property by certain persons for certain purpose, such as religious or charitable. The question as to whether the public trust is or is not governed by the Right to Information Act has to be decided on the basis of the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It would be necessary to look into certain provisions of the Act. Section 4 of the Right to Information Act casts a duty on every public authority to maintain the record in such a manner to facilitate the supply of information. Section 5 speaks of appointment of Information Officer while Section 6 speaks of making an application to the Information Officer. Section 7 deals with the disposal of such request. It is clear from Section 4 that Act applies to the public authorities. The definition of public authority as given in the Act reads as follows.

“Public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self government e