Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Counsel for the respondents, learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to compel the petitioner’s institution to give information as sought by respondent No. 5.

3. Further a writ of mandamus is also sought for restraining the respondents from taking any action against the petitioner’s institution for not giving information to respondent No. 5 as directed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad.

4. The ground on the basis of which the relief sought is that the petitioner is a private institution which has been recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad receiving grant-in-aid by the State Government does not fall within the ambit of Section 2(g) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, hereinafter referred to as the Act, hence the institution cannot be compelled to give information which has been sought by respondent No. 5 by moving an application to the DIOS and no action can be taken against the petitioner under the aforesaid Act. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner upon an interim order dated 12.9.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 41818 of 2007 which is as under :

“Connect with Writ Petition No. 13211 of 2007.

Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

Issue notice to the respondent No. 3 fixing a date immediately after six weeks.

All the respondents may file counter affidavit by the next date.

In the connected writ petition, it has been contended that the Committee of Management of private institution which has been recognized by Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government does not answer description of ‘public authority’ as per Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act as such institution in question cannot be compelled to answer before the aforementioned authority.

As the issue raised in the present writ petition is identical to the issue raised in the aforementioned writ petition, as such, the petitioner is also entitled to grant of interim order as has been granted in the connected writ petition.

Accordingly, it is provided that till the next date of listing no action shall be taken against the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005.”

5. He has urged that in another similar writ petition No. 13231 of 2007, Committee of Management, Sri Gandhi Smarak and another v. State of U.P. and others, this Court has also passed an order dated 13.3.2007 on the point whether such private institutions fall within the ambit of ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, though they may have been recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and are receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government, the Court has held that such institutions as aforesaid do not answer description of ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. The order dated 31.3.2007 is also an interim order of this Court which has been appended as Annexure-7 to the writ petition.

6. A perusal of the two interim orders aforesaid dated 13.3.2007 and 12.9.2007 show that the Court has noted the contentions of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the private institutions have been recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and are receiving grant-in-aid did not conform description as of ‘public authority’ as defined in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 which was only issue raised by the petitioner at the time of admission. An interim order which is passed at the time of admission pending proceedings to be complied with in order to balance the equities during the pendency of the petition is not a final adjudication of dispute. It is not a judgment and has no persuasive value.

7. It appears from the record that respondent No. 5 had sough