LPA No. 1187 of 2016 and connected cases -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

1.

LPA No. 1187 of 2016

Amity University

....Appellant

versus

State of Haryana and others

..Respondents

2.

LPA No. 2922 of 2018

K.R. Mangalam University, Sohana Road, Gurgaon through

....Appellant

its Registrar

versus

State of Haryana and others

..Respondents

3.

LPA No. 555 of 2017

Educate India Society and anr.

....Appellants

versus

State of Haryana and another

..Respondents

Date of decision:-06.07.2022

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:

Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Advocate and Mr. Deepak Saini, Advocate

for the appellant ( in LPA-1187-2016)

Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate

for the appellant ( in LPA No. 2922-2018)

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl.A.G, Haryana with

Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana

Mr. K.S. Kheher, Advocate

for respondent No. 3

None for the appellant in LPA No. 555 of 2017

***

RITU BAHRI , J.

This order shall dispose of the above three appeals as common

question of facts and law are involved in all these appeals wherein prayer is

GAURAV ARORA

2022.09.07 12:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

LPA No. 1187 of 2016 and connected cases -2-

for quashing of final/judgment order dated 12.04.2016 (A-1) passed by

learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 24552-2013 dismissing the

writ petition challenging validity of order 06.08.2013 passed by State

Information Commissioner, Haryana under Right to Information Act, 2005

(for short 'Act 2005'); final order/judgment dated 12.04.2016 passed by

learned Single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 2486-2014 dismissing the

writ petition challenging validity of orders dated 05.11.2013 and 06.12.2013

passed by State Information Commissioner, Haryana under Act, 2005 and

final order/judgment dated 07.12.2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this

Court in CWP No. 31036-2018 dismissing the writ petition challenging

validity of order dated 10.05.2018 passed by State Information

Commissioner, Haryana under Act, 2005 . However, for facility of reference,

the facts are being taken from LPA No. 1187-2016.

In the above three appeals, the short point for consideration

before this Court is that whether the appellant (s) are public authority or not

under the Act 2005.

Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that the appellants

being private universities are not covered under the definition of the 'public

authority' within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Act 2005.

Reference at this stage can be made to judgment of this Court in

a case of Chandigarh University, Village Gharuan vs. State of Punjab and

others, passed in CWP No. 1509-2013, decided on 01.03.2013 wherein the

petitioner-Chandigarh University was seeking quashing of order dated

14.12.2012 passed by State Information Commission, Punjab on the ground

that the petitioner-University is privately owned and managed Institution

which is not receiving financial assistance directly or indirectly from the

GAURAV ARORA

2022.09.07 12:05

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

LPA No. 1187 of 2016 and connected cases -3-

State and thus, the petitioner-University would not fall within the definition

of public authority under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. The petition was

dismissed holding the petitioner-University falling within the meaning of “

public authority” under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.

In the present case, appellant-Amity University is unaided and

self-financed private university established under the provisions of “Haryana

Private Universities Act, 2006, by the State Legislature. A copy of the

Haryana Private