ORDER

% 19.01.2024

1. The short question which arises for consideration in the present Writ Petition is as to whether the Petitioner herein would be a public authority within the domain of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 or not.

2. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner places reliance on the Judgment passed by the Bombay High Court in Kishor S. Bhat v. Indian Bank’s Association, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 2857. Relevant portions of the said judgment reads as under:

“18. Having regard to the tests laid down by the Apex Court, in our opinion, the Respondent - Association cannot be said to an instrumentality or agency of the State. We find that the member has to pay basic annual subscription and share in expenses as set out in the Rules. We further notice that the members have to apply to the Association and if admitted as members shall pay an entrance fee of an amount equivalent to its Basic Annual Subscription and Share in Expenses and non payment of Basic Annual Subscription and Share in Expenses shall result in cessation of membership in accordance with the Rule 23 of the Rules. From the 31 members who constitute the Managing Committee, though 16 members are to be from the Public Sector Banks, the Rules provide that for meetings of the Committee any six members of the Managing Committee shall constitute Coram. It is nobody's case that Government is in any way rendering any financial assistance to the Association. The membership of the Association is also not compulsory. The material on record is not all sufficient to indicate that an Association enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. The Association is not created under some statute. It is not pointed out as to by which statute the Association is governed or what are the duties and responsibilities which are fastened on the Association statutorily which they are bound to comply with, in which case for violation thereof a writ can certainly be issued. The Apex Court has held that even in respect of any non compliance or violation of any statutory provision by the private body a difficulty may arise in issuing a writ as in that event the writ may not be issued at all and other remedies as may be available, may be resorted to.

this aspect which has been enumerated in the case of Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi (supra) and referred to in the decision of Ramana Dayaram Shetty's Case (supra) and in the case of Pradeep Kumar Biswas (supra) may be applied to the facts of the present case to see as to whether those tests apply to the Respondent - Association or not. As indicated earlier, no kind of financial assistance is provided by the State. The Association does not enjoy monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected. So far as control over the affairs of the Association is concerned, the affairs, business and funds of the Association are vested in and are managed by a Managing Committee. As discussed earlier, though out of these 31 members representing Managing Committee 16 members are to be from those representing public sector banks, nevertheless for meetings of the Committee any six members of the Managing Committee constitute the Coram at the meeting of the Committee. It is not as if the representatives of the public sector banks have absolute control over the Management of the Association. No governmental agency or officer is connected with the affairs of the Association nor anyone is member of the Managing Committee. In the normal functioning of the Association there is no participation or interference of the State or its authorities. The object of the Respondent Association which can be seen from the objects enumerated in the Rules is to promote and develop in India sound and progressive banking principles, practices and conventions and to contribute to the development of creative banking amongst others. Neither do we find that there is existence of deep and pervasive State control over