Information sought by any citizen of India has to be given.

The writ Petitioner School is an Aided Private Recognised School and the petitioner is seeking for a declaration that either under the Tamil Nadu Right to Information Act, 1997 or the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22/2005) [for short, RTI Act, 2005] does not apply to the Aided Private School and also for consequential relief for quashing the circular issued by the District Educational Officer, the third respondent, directing the Management to furnish the information sought for on 18. 2006 and 19. 2006 by the fourth respondent.

2. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and have perused the records.

3. The writ petitioner is an Aided Private Recognised school running Higher Secondary pattern under the State Board and they are running classes from VI Std to +2 Course and there are about 2374 students studying in the school. There are 59 teaching staff and all of them have given 100% salary from the aid. Besides the staff for whom aid has been granted, there are other teaching staff and non-teaching staff appointed by the Management who are not getting the aid. In the year 2005-2006, the fourth respondent started a programme in which he trained students in spoken English and this programme was permitted by the Chief Educational Officer. The training programme was an optional one and it was decided to provide the students on a collection of Rs.10/- per month from each student. Admittedly, the petitioner permitted the fourth respondent to offer the training programme in spoken English by conducting extra classes with the understanding that the money collected by the petitioner / Management will be given to the fourth respondent. However, certain misunderstanding took place between the fourth respondent and the petitioner and they discontinued the programme offered by the fourth respondent for the academic year 2006-2007.

.4. It is the allegation of the writ petitioner that the fourth respondent was infuriated by the said action and started making complaints against the petitioner. It was thereafter the fourth respondent sought for certain information with reference to the money collected by the petitioner with regard to the programme conducted by it in the petitioners school. When this letter was not answered, he approached the educational authorities including the third respondent and requested to direct the school management to furnish such information. Apparently, he sought for information in terms of RTI Act, 2005, which does not apply to them. Thereafter, the fourth respondent sent a letter dated 18. 2006, which is impugned in this writ petition, stating that the petitioner is bound to furnish the information as it is a public authority coming under the R.T.I Act, 2005. It was also stated that the petitioner School, though may be a private school, is coming within the definition of Non-Governmental Organisation and also, it is substantially financed by the Government. In fact, it has been stated that the salary grant given by the State to the petitioner School was around Rs.8,99,927/- per month. Roughly, the Management is getting Rs.1.1 Crores per annum from the second respondent State Government for the running of the school and, therefore, the funding given by the State is substantial. In view of the same, the petitioner School is a public authority coming under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) wherein "Non-Government Organisation substantially financed" has been included.

5. Once the School comes under the purview of the RTI Act, then under Section 3, all the Citizens shall have the right to information and Section 4 provides for an obligation of public authorities to provide information which have been listed therein. Section 8 provides for exemption from disclosure of information wherein in 8(1)(j), it has been stated that if the information relates to personal information and the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarrant