( 1 ) RULE. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned counsel for rival parties.

( 2 ) BY the present petition, the petitioners have put to challenge the order dated 1. 9. 2008 pad by the State Information Commioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, in Appeal No. 1772/07 holding that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is applicable to the petitioners.

( 3 ) IN support of writ petition, Mr. Shashank Manor, learned counsel for petitioners, vehemently argued that petitioner no. 1 which is a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act and petitioner no. 2 an unaided Engineering College do not at all fall within the meaning of definition of blic Authority as defined under Right to Information Act. He argued that none of these petitioners were created or established or constituted by any law made by the State legislature, as amed by the State Information Commioner in his impugned order. Further, none of the petitioners have been financed either directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate government. The reimbursement made by such governments under their respective schemes is for the students and not for the petitioners towards the fees recoverable from backward class students or other instrumentation provided by the appropriate government. He then argued that grant of permission to start petitioner no. 2 college from the Director of Technical Education or from AICTE or from Nagpur University cannot mean that there is any control since these are the regulatory controls in the matter of admissions, affiliations etc. provided by their respective laws and there is no direct or indirect control as contemplated by the definition. He then argued that the impugned order is clearly illegal and deserves to be quashed and set aside.

( 4 ) PER contra, Mr. Rohit Sharma holding for Mr. Anand Parchure argued that petitioner no. 2 could not have been started without the permion of Director of Technical Education or AICTE and the affiliation by Nagpur University which clearly shows that these authorities have full control over the working of petitioner no. 2 including making of admions, fees structure, grant of permion to open new courses and therefore there is material to show that there is control. He then argued that the land which was allotted to petitioner no. 1 for constructing building for petitioner no. 2 college was allotted by the State Government on a nominal lease amount. The land which belongs to Government has been leased out and therefore it can be said that the government has given its property by leasing out its lands to petitioners no. 1 and 2. If that is so, the petitioners ought to be held to be public authority. The admissions of the students are made in the petitioner no. 2 college through Common Entrance Test and the petitioner no. 2 does not have any authority to admit the students on its own. To add to this, under various schemes the Central Government as well as the State Government provide for finance to the petitioner no. 2 for undertaking various schemes introduced by the Central Government or the State Government for upliftment of the education standard. Even the fees are reimbursed to the students belonging to backward clas and such amounts are paid to petitioner no. 2 by Central/state Government. In fact the petitioners appointed Public Information Officer in terms of the directions ied by the Director. He, therefore, urged this Court to uphold the order of State Information Commissioner.

( 5 ) I have heard learned counsel for rival parties and I have also gone through the impugned order. The definition of public authority as given under the Act reads thus : public authority means any authority or body or institution of self government established or constituted by or under the Constitution; by any other law made by Parliament; by any other law made by State Legislature; by notification ied or order made by the appropriate government, and includes any body

Click Here to Read the rest of this document