IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2123 of 2009. Himalayan Institute of Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun and another. … Petitioners. Vs. Uttarakhand Information Commissioner and another. …Respondents. Mr. V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. T.C.Pandey, Advocate, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. WITH (1) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2082 of 2009. Himalayan Institute of Hospital Trust, Jolly Grant, Dehradun, a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, through its Secretary Shri Vijendra Chauhan. … Petitioner. Vs. The Public Information Officer, Uttarakhand Information Commission, Sector 1, C-30, Defence Colony, Dehradun. …Respondent. Mr. V.K.Kohli, learned Senior Advocate wit Mr. T.C. Pandey, Advocate, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 1. (2) Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2035 of 2008. Gaurav Bharti Shiksha Sansthan and another. … Petitioners. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. …Respondents. Mr. H.M.Bhatia, Advocate, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. P.C.Bisht, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. J.P.Joshi, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2. Mr. Arvind Vashist, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and 5. Date October 26, 2010. 2 Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the controversy involved in all these three writ petitions is similar, therefore, for the sake of convenience, they are being decided by this common order. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2123 of 2009, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 26-11-2009 passed by respondent no.1-Uttarakhand Information Commissioner (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby Public Information Officer of the Himalayan Institute of Medical Sciences, Swami Ramnagar was directed to appear before the Uttarakhand Information Commission on 18-12-2009. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2082 of 2009, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 1-12-2009 passed by Public Information Officer, Uttarakhand Information Commission Dehradun (Annexure-2 to the writ petition) whereby Public Information Officer of the Himalayan Institute Hospital Trust, Swami Ramnagar was directed to supply the information sought by the applicant Prasad Ram. In Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2035 of 2008, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the letter dated 11-1-2008 of the Uttarakhand State Information Commissioner (Annexure-3), letter dated 6-2-2008 of the Government of Uttarakhand (Annexure-4), letter of the H.N.B. Garhwal University dated 14-3- 2008/20-2-2008 (Annexure-5) and letter of Uttarakhand Technical University dated 5-8-2008 (Annexure-6). According to the petitioners, they are unaided, self- financed and private societies duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and are non-governmental institutions. The petitioners are not ‘public authority’ within the meaning of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the Act). 3 The grievance of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Act cannot be made applicable to the petitioners. In the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners have urged that the controversy involved in the present writ petitions stood settled by this Court by order dated 9-2-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2009 (M/S) Asian Education Charitable Society Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, wherein it has been held that private individuals or private institutions, which are not aided by the Government, are not ‘public authority’ and cannot be compelled to comply the provisions contained in the Act. It has also been held in that writ petition that ‘Right to Information’ which is defined in Section 2(j) of the Act clearly provides that the Right to Information is a right to information accessible under the Act. Learned counsel also submitted that this Court has relied upon the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2009 (M/S) while deciding W.P.M.S. No. 1411 of 2008 Chanakya Law College Vs. State Chief Information Commissioner and others vide order dated 23-7-2010 and has urged that the present writ petitions may be disposed of in terms of the order dated 23-7-2010 passed by this Court. I have perused the order dated 23-7-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1411 of 2008 Chanakya Law College Vs. State Chief Information Commissioner and others. The controversy involved in the present writ petitions is similar to the controversy involved in WPMS No. 1411 of 2008. As such, the present writ petitions are squarely covered by the said judgment. Accordingly, all the three writ petitions are disposed of in terms of the order dated 23-7-2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1411 of 2008 Chanakya Law College Vs. State Chief Information Commissioner and others. The impugned orders also stand quashed in so far as they relate to the present petitioners. (B.S.Verma,J.) RCP