Non-Government Colleges receiving grants-in-aid from the State or Central Government are considered public authorities and are subject to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

1. Heard. Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of learned Counsel for the rival parties.

2. By the present petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the notification issued by respondent No.3 - Joint Director of Education dated 12.9.2008, Annexure – I, by which Principals and office bearers of Non-Government Colleges receiving grants-in-aid were directed to appoint Public Information Officers in order to comply with the Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. In support of the writ petition, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the petitioners are a Education Society registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and it does not receive any grant-in-aid from the Government nor it is funded by the State Government. Therefore, the case of the petitioners is fully covered by the decision of a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur and another...Versus...Maharashtra State information Commission, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur and another, reported in 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 85.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners thus argued that the said notification issued by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is liable to be quashed and set aside by holding that the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 are not applicable to the petitioners – Society.

5. We have gone through the notification dated 12.9.2008, issued by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur and the decision rendered by the Single Judge of this Court, cited supra. The decision which is referred by the learned Counsel for the petitioners has no applicability in the instant case. In that case it was not disputed that petitioner No.1 – Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, Nagpur and the Engineering College run by it i.e. petitioner No.2 were neither directly nor indirectly funded by the appropriate Government. Since petitioner No.2 in that case admittedly is unaided College and was not provided grants or any other funds by the appropriate Government directly or indirectly and further the question whether schools or colleges receiving grants-in-aid from the Government directly or indirectly would be covered by the definition of public authority did not fall for consideration. In that factual background, the learned Single Judge of this Court held that petitioner No.1 – Education Society and petitioner No.2- Engineering College did not fall within the meaning of definition of public authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

6. In the instant case, however, we find that the impugned notification dated 12.9.2008, Annexure-I, issued by the Joint Director of Higher Education, Nagpur Division, Nagpur is not at all addressed to the petitioners – Education Society but is addressed and in our opinion, rightly to the Non-Government Colleges receiving grants-in-aid to appoint Public Information Officer under the Right to Information Act. We have no doubt in our mind that all the Colleges receiving grants-in-aid from the Government of Maharashtra or from the Central Government will have to be treated as public authority as defined in Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 because such colleges directly or indirectly receive the grants-in-aid from the Government(s). In the instant case, the petitioners have admitted in paragraph No.5 that the Colleges and Institutions run by the petitioners are receiving grants-in-aid. We quote relevant extracted portion from paragraph No.5 of the petition as under.

“It is only colleges and institutions run by the petitioner-Trust are receiving grant-in-aid from the State's Exchequer. It is categorically stated that the petitioner-Trust did not receive a single rupee from the State and the aided is provided by the Government to the institutions administered by petitioner-society.”

7. In view of the above admitted position, the notification in question is perfectly in orde