1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 3045/2009 Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Saoner -: versus :- Ujjwalkumar Wasudeorao Bagade and another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED : FEBRUARY 16, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri V.D. Raut, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Kothari, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2. Grievance made by the petitioner is, as it is not a Public Authority as defined in Section 2[h] of the Right to Information Act, the information cannot be asked for. Second contention is, in any case petitioner was not heard by respondent no.2 before inflicting fine. Shri Raut, learned counsel for petitioner points out that the notice to remain present was received at 3 p.m. On 09.06.2009 and hence adjournment was sought on 10.06.2009, but the impugned order imposing penalty upon the petitioner came to be passed. Shri Kothari, learned A.G.P. is supporting the order. He contends that as petitioner is a Market Committee established by law made by the State Legislature, the provisions of the Act are applicable to it. 2 During hearing Shri Raut, learned counsel has pointed out that information was placed before respondent no.2 in the shape of submissions by petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner to supply the information as sought for to respondent no.1 as directed by respondent no.2 and file appropriate affidavit of compliance thereof before respondent no.2 by 05.03.2010. Subject to such compliance, part of order imposing penalty upon petitioner is quashed and set aside. Petitioner is given liberty to appear before respondent no.2 to point out why fine should not be inflicted upon it. Petitioner shall appear before respondent no.2 on 05.03.2010 and shall file appropriate reply in defence. If such reply is filed, respondent no.2 shall consider the same and pass further appropriate orders. Contentions of Shri Raut, learned counsel about applicability of Right to Information Act is kept open for consideration in other appropriate matter. Writ Petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Rule accordingly. No cost. JUDGE Rgd.