IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1239 of 2010. B.S.M. Law College, Roorkee, Haridwar, through its Principal. … Petitioner. Vs. 1. State Information Commission, through its Commissioner, Defence Colony, Dehradun. 2. Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate S/O Sri Braham Chandra, Chamber No. 44, Civil Court, Ramnagar, Roorkee, District Haridwar. …Respondents. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Mr. Mohd. Umar, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Date September 23, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 6-7- 2010 passed by respondent no. 1 (contained as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition), whereby the petitioner was directed to register the complaint made by the respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 under Section 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the Act), and to decide the same within time schedule. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner institution is a self-financed Law College, recognized by the Bar Council of India and the petitioner-institution is, admittedly, affiliated to the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar. The petitioner is not covered by the definition of “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act, therefore, the respondent no.1 has exceeded its jurisdiction to direct the petitioner to register the complaint made by the respondent no.2 as First Appeal and to decide the same within time bound period. 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that similar information was sought by the respondent no.2 from the Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar vide Annexure No. 3 to the petition. Learned counsel has pointed out that this Court while passing the interim order dated 10-8-2010 has made it clear that the concerned University was not restrained from seeking any third party information from the petitioner as provided under Section 11 of the Act. I have perused the interim order dated 10-8-2010 wherein it has been observed that “however, it is made clear that by this order this Court has not restrained H.N.B. Garhwal University from seeking any third party information from the petitioner as provided under Section 11 of the Right to Information Act.” Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the entire material placed before this Court, I am of the view that it would be in the fitness of things that the interim order dated 10-8-2010 passed by this Court be made absolute and the writ petition may be disposed in terms of the said order. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 10-8-2010 passed by this Court, which is made absolute. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP