1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5227 OF 2009 (Gangadhar V. Nakade vs. State Information Commission, Vidarbha Region & Ors.) 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. JANUARY 28, 2010. Heard Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Kothari, learned AGP for respondents No. 1 & 2 and Shri Mathur, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3. Shri Kulkarni, learned counsel by placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Bhaskarrao vs. State Information Commissioner, reported at 2009 (4) Mh.L.J. 802 and N.Y.S. Sanstha vs. M.S.I.C., reported at 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 85, argues that the petitioner – Trust is not public authority and, therefore, cannot be subjected to jurisdiction of the authorities functioning under Right to Information Act. Shri Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No.3 disputes this. He points out that if the Trust is funded or assisted from any public fund, the Act is applicable. However, he clarifies that Respondent No.3 had demanded information from public authorities functioning under Bombay Public Trust Act and not from the petitioner. 2 I have perused the impugned order. The impugned order clearly shows that the authority under Right to Information Act has on 16.10.2009 directed Public Information Officer working with Assistant Charity Commissioner to procure information from the petitioner, if it is not available, and to provide it to Respondent No.3. The direction could not have been issued in view of two judgments mentioned above as there is no finding recorded that the petitioner – Trust is receiving assistance from public funds. The petitioner – Trust being third party, such direction could not have been issued behind its back. The Public Information officer in the office of Assistant Charity Commissioner has to supply information in accordance with law but for that purpose by invoking RTI Act, coercive action cannot be taken against the petitioner. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.