A Public Trust is not a 'Public Authority' under the RTI Act unless it receives substantial government funding or control, distinguishing it from the educational institutions it manages.

ORDER :

1. The Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question:

Question: Whether a Public Trust registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Public Trusts Act 1950, which is running an institution that receives grant from the State is duty bound to supply information sought from it under provisions of Right to Information Act 2005?

2. The need for formulating the above question arose on account of a discord found by the learned Division Bench between various decisions of this Court taking opposite views on the above issue, by one set of judgments holding that the Trust/Society running an educational institution, which educational institution was receiving grants from the Government, would not fall within the definition of ‘Public Authority’ as it was the educational institution which was receiving the grants and not the Trust/Society and therefore information vis-a-vis the affairs of the Trust/Society as opposed to information in respect of the educational institution, could not be termed as ‘information’ within the meaning of the expression as defined in section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act (‘RTI Act’ for short hereinafter) so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the authorities under the RTI Act to enforce its disclosure. These judgments are:

(i) Bhaskar Shankarrao Kulkarni vs. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur and Others, 2009 (4) Mh. L.J. 802 [C.L. Pangarkar, J.] an LPA against which namely LPA No. 287/2009 decided on 28/07/2009 has been dismissed by the learned Division Bench

(ii) Thalappalam Service Coop. Bank Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82

(iii) D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society and Others vs. Director of Public Instructions and Others, (2019) 9 SCC 185

(iv) Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha and Another vs. Maharashtra State Information Commission, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur and Another, 2009 (6) Mh. L.J. 85 [A.B. Choudhari, J.]

(v) Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-Op. Bank Ltd. vs. State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region and Others, 2009 (3) Mh. L.J. 364

(vi) Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Murlidhar Pundlikrao Sahare, 2010 (2) Mh. L.J. 240 [Mrs. V.A. Naik J.]

Another set of judgments takes the view that since the educational institution receiving the grant is owned and controlled by the Society/Trust, which therefore can be said to have access to the finances provided by the State to the Educational Institution, it would be permissible for information regarding the Society/Trust to be directed to be made available under the RTI Act. This view is taken by the following decisions:

(a) Appellate Authority and Chairman Shikshan Prasarak Mandali and Another vs. State Information Commissioner and Another, 2013 (1) Mh. L.J. 897

(b) LPA No. 48/2013 decided on 20.3.2013 against Appellate Authority and Chairman Shikshan Prasarak Mandali and Another (supra) which has been admitted

(c) Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, Kamptee and Another vs. The State Information Commissioner, Nagpur and Others, 2010 (6) Mh. L.J. 357

3. Mr. Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the petitioner/Trust, runs two educational institutions/Colleges, however, what was being sought was the information related to the Trust and not the Educational Intuitions and such information could not be directed to be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act, as the Trust, did not fall within the definition of a ‘Public Authority’ as defined in sec.2(h) of the said Act. He contends that even if the State was providing salary and non-salary grants to the institutions, that may bring in the Educational Institutions within the ambit of the RTI Act, but not the Trust, as the providing of salary and non-salary grants, by the State was as a matter of policy to all the aided institutions, in the State and therefore the information in respect of the Trust could not be said to be information capable of being directed to be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. He further contends that even if the Trust was