Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Bharatiya Sanskriti Vidya Mandir - Petitioners
Versus
Gujarat State Information Commission, & 1 Others – Respondents
R/Special Civil Application No. 20045 of 2006 With R/Special Civil Application No. 8515 of 2006
Decided On : 22-05-2020
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles 226, 12 , 235 , 19(1)(a) and 227 - Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(h), 2(h)(d)(1), 18(1) and 18(2) 2(13) - Gujarat Universities Act, 1949 - Sections 51(A) and 4(24) - University Grants Commission Act, 1956 - Sections 12(A)(b) - RTI Act - Section 11 - Insubordination and plagiarism and a departmental inquiry was conducted - State Information Commission - Misconduct - Public trust - Petitioner was registered as a public trust in year - Petitioner is carrying on activities mainly of study and research of all subjects broadly falling under Indology - Petitioner in order to achieve its objects has established an institution Institute of Indology and a museum in Museum - Institute is also recognized by Gujarat University as a research centre for promoting doctoral and post doctoral studies carried out by scholars Indian Culture - Petitioner that respondent no.2 was appointed as lecturer by petitioner in subject of Indian culture in the set up of said institute - Petitioner at a later stage issued a chargesheet upon respondent no.2 for several misconducts like dereliction of duty, insubordination and plagiarism and a departmental inquiry was conducted in respect of such charges of misconduct leveled against respondent - It appears that on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, respondent no.2 was found to be guilty of misconduct and after obtaining sanction from Gujarat University under section 51(A) of Gujarat Universities Act, 1949, services of respondent no.2 came to be terminated – Held, Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of Act - No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under Cooperative Societies Act, a Registrar can call for details of bank accounts maintained by citizens or members in a cooperative bank. Only those information which a Registrar of Cooperative Societies can have access under Cooperative Societies Act from a society could be said to be the information which is “held” or under the control of public authority - Even those information, , as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if those information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8(j) of the Act - Disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest or which would cause unwarranted of privacy of the individual, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, even if he has got that information, is not bound to furnish same to an applicant, unless he is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information, that too, for reasons to be recorded in writing - Court to the facts of the case, it is not possible to hold that the petitioners who are receiving grant from State Government cannot be said to be “public authority - In case of both petitioners, the institutions run by petitioners receive 100% grant from the State Government and as such, the same would be covered by the definition of “public authority – Petitions dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Bhargav D. Karia, J.
1. By these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged order passed by respondent no.1 Gujarat State Information Commission holding that the petitioner is a “public authority” within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“Act 2005” for short)
2. Since both the petitions are arising out of common issue, the same were heard analogously and for the sake of convenience Special Civil Application No.20045/2006 is treated as the lead matter.
3. Brief facts giving rise to these petitions are as under. The petitioner was established on 17th June, 1956 as a society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The petitioner is also considered as a public charitable trust under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 in view of the provisions of section 2(13) of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.
3.1) Accordingly, the petitioner was registered as a public trust in the year 1956. The petitioner is carrying on activities mainly of study and research of all the subjects broadly falling under Indology. The petitioner in order to achieve its objects has established an institution in the name of Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Institute of Indology and a museum in the name of Lalbhai Dalpatbhai Museum. The said institute is also recognized by the Gujarat University as a research centre for promoting doctoral and post doctoral studies carried out by the scholars in Sanskrit, Prakrit, Ancient Indian Culture etc.
3.2) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 was appointed as lecturer by the petitioner in the month of May, 1989 in the subject of Indian culture in the set up of the said institute. The petitioner at a later stage issued a chargesheet upon the respondent no.2 for several misconducts like dereliction of duty, insubordination and plagiarism and a departmental inquiry was conducted in respect of such charges of misconduct leveled against respondent no.2. It appears that on conclusion of the departmental inquiry, respondent no.2 was found to be guilty of misconduct and after obtaining sanction from the Gujarat University under section 51(A) of the Gujarat Universities Act, 1949, services of the respondent no.2 came to be terminated with effect from 1st August, 2005.
3.3) It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no.2 thereafter moved about 12 applications before the petitioner seeking information on various aspects referable to the petitioner and the said institute under the provisions of the Act2005.
3.4) The petitioner however, took the stand that the petitioner would not qualify to be public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Act2005 and as a result thereof, it would be wholly impermissible on the part of respondent no.2 to solicit information from the petitioner under the provisions of the Act2005.
3.5) It appears that the respondent no.2 being aggrieved by the stand taken by the petitioner preferred an application before the respondent no.1 under sections 18(1) and 18(2) of the Act2005 which was registered as Inquiry No.1 of 2005.
3.6) Respondent No.1 after hearing the parties passed the impugned order dated 6th May, 2006 holding that the petitioner and the said institute run by the petitioner would qualify as “public authorities” within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Act2005. The petitioners being aggrieved by the said order has preferred this petition.
4. This Court (Coram : Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.N. Patel) passed the following order on 19th February, 2008 :
Ad interim relief in terms of para 16 (B) is granted during the pendency and final disposal of this Special Civil Application.
To be heard with Special Civil Application No.8353 of 2006 and 8515 of 2006.”
5. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dhaval C. Dave
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
