ORDER :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

2. Petitioner would call in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24-1-2008 passed in complaint case No. 258/2007 (WPC No. 1332 of 2008) and the impugned order dated 31-1-2008 passed in complaint case No. 581/2007 (WPC No. 1352 of 2008) by the Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 3 (Rakesh Choubey in WPC No. 1332 of 2008 and Pramod Tiwari in WPC No. 1352 of 2008) directing the petitioner to supply information to the said respondents.

3. Challenge to the impugned orders is mainly on the ground that petitioner being a registered society bearing Regn. No. 16/1951-52, therefore, being a private body it is not covered within the meaning of term 'public authority' defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act').

4. Referring to Sections 4 to 7 of the RTI Act, it is argued that the liability or obligation to provide information is on any public authority and not on any non-Gove