Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.
The Appellate Authority & Chairman Shikshan Prasarak Mandali & Anr. – Appellants.
Vs.
The State Information Commissioner & Anr. – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 26 of 2011 along with Writ Petition Nos. 27 to 30 of 2011.
Decided On : 18th October, 2012.
Information can be sought from educational institutions receiving grants in aid from State run by public candidate trust. - Educational institutions are bodies controlled or substantially financed by appropriate Government and therefore covered by definition.
However then to say that in relation to them any information is sought, it must be sought directly from them and not from Trust would make it impossible for citizens to have access to information in relation to these bodies. That is not intended by Statute nor is Statute enacted to assist anybody much less persons like petitioner trusts to evade disclosure of their affairs and dealings. Petitioner is public trust managing educational institutions, to which State funds although it may be received in name of educational institution.
There are varied activities carried out for benefit and interest of public through such Trusts. To hold that whenever such activities are carried out, .activities are amenable to RTI Act and if these activities are carried out by distinct bodies under Trust, one can seek information from such bodies but not from parental authority means neither of them would provide information.
Therefore to view school and college or educational institution in isolation and separate legal entity and only deal with or approach them would mean that citizens right which is paramount and predominant in this case will be rendered nugatory and cannot be exercised and enforced by them.
Information can be sought by approaching both educational institutions and parent entity controlling them or either. However duty or obligation to provide information must be discharged by Public Authority i.e. petitioner Trust.
RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, 2005 - Section 2(h) - Constitution of India, Article 19(1)(a) - Right to information.
Information can be sought from Public Charitable Trust or educational institutions run by Trust.
WORDS AND PHRASES - The word "establish" - Meaning of.
The word ’establish’ means ’to bring into existence’ whereas word ’constituted’ does not necessarily mean ’created’ or set up’ though it may mean that also. Word is used in wider significance and would include both idea of creating or establishing and giving legal form to body. It includes. later part anybody owned, controlled or substantially financed’ and equally nongovernmental organisation, substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by appropriate government. Thus anybody owned, controlled or substantially financed is being brought within net and purview of definition so as to clearly set out its duty and obligation to provide information and thereafter, make it possible for citizens to enforce it. It is very clear that Legislature did not exhaust itself but included bodies owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by appropriate Government. Therefore, to urge that there is no control over public charitable trust by appropriate Government or if at all there is any control or element of public dealings come in, that is only in relation to Educational Institutions which are run, administered and managed by Trust is nothing but an attempt to escape from being covered by Act and complying with its mandate.
Rule in each of the writ petitions. Respondents waive service. Rule made returnable by consent.
By these petitions under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the orders passed under Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short) and particularly holding that they are amenable to that Act and obliged to give information in relation to the affairs of the Educational Institutions, which are managed, administered and controlled by a Public Charitable Trust. The facts and arguments are common. They are taken from Writ Petition No.26 of 2011 for convenience. The respondent No.2 in these petitions sought information with regard to some complaints made to the President of the Institution in March or April 2008. The applicants requested for supply of copies of the complaints and some other documents, particulars of which have been given in the appeal memos. The documents demanded are 18 in number, however, the petitioners in reply to the letters seeking information stated that the Right To Information Act is not applicable. The stand is that Shikshan Prasarak Mandali, is neither aided by the Government nor it comes• under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It is further contended that some of the schools run by the Trust are aided by the Government and such schools may be regarded as a Public Authority. However, all Educational Institutions do not come or fall within the definition of this term.
2. The argument is that the Trust is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. An Educational Institution, managed and administered by the Trust receives the grants and assistance from the Government. It is at best that Institution which can be said to be falling within the definition of the term public authority but certainly this will not take within its import or fold the public charitable trust and which merely manages and administers the Educational Institution. A public charitable trust pure and simple cannot be said to be a public authority under the RTI Act. It cannot be said to be a Authority or body owned or controlled by the State Government.
3. It is not possible to accept either of these contentions for obvious reasons. What has led to this argument is an order which is under challenge in this petition. That order has been passed by the Commissioner of Information, Pune Bench of the Maharashtra State Information Commission. That Authority was dealing with an Appeal challenging an order which was impugned before it. That was an appeal under section 19(3) of the RTI Act. It was the case of the petitioner that it is a public trust registered under the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is running several schools, colleges and other Educational Institutions. Some of these are receiving grants in aid from the State Government while some are run on unaided or no aid or grant basis. The petitioner Trust is not receiving any grant from Government in any form whatsoever. The second respondent to this petition made an application to petitioner No.2, Public Information Officer of the Trust. By that application, he sought information relating to the Trust. He was informed on 6th October 2009 that the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to the Trust. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied by this communication, he preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. That appeal also was disposed of by the appellate authority affirming above conclusions.
4. He then filed Second Appeal No. 1932 of 2009 on 11th December 2009 and which appeal was placed before the Information Commissioner, who by the impugned order dated 13th September 2010 allowed it and directed the petitioners to supply the said information.
5. Aggrieved and dis-satisfied with this order that the instant petition is filed in which Mr.Bandivadekar, learned Counsel appearing for petitioner made the aforenoted arguments.
6. On the other hand Mr.Anturka
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
