IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 13063 of 2008 Between: T.L.Swamy, S/o. Kisan R/o. 5-6-164, Yellammagutta, Nizamabad. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Nizamabad District Chaathadha Sri Vaishnava Sangam, Nizamabad, Rep. by its President Dr.D.L.N.Swamy, H.No. 5-4-387/4, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad. 2 Dr.D.L.N.Swamy, S/o. D.Ramulu H.No. 5-4-387/4, Khaleelwadi, Nizamabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue a writ or order or direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus: i) declare the action of the respondents in not furnishing the information sought by the petitioner under Right to information Act, 2005 is illegal, and arbitrary. ii) consequently direct the respondents to furnish all the required information and doculents sought by the petitioner vide his representation date 22-3-2007 under Right to information Act'2005 iii) and pass Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.P.BASAVAIAH Counsel for the Respondent No.: . The Court made the following : THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.V.RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO.13063 OF 2008 ORAL ORDER: The petitioner states that he is a member of the first respondent- society, and that it was established for a noble cause, i.e. to work for the all round development and upliftment of the people belonging to Chaathadha Sri Vaishnava Community of Nizamabad District. The first respondent-society, the petitioner states, is not only collecting subscription from its members, but is also getting funds from the Government, under various schemes. The petitioner states that the second respondent, who is the President of the first respondent-society, is misusing the funds. It is his grievance that even though he and other members made representations, including one under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 requesting the second respondent to furnish the statement of accounts of the amounts, received by the first respondent-society towards subscriptions as also funds from the government under various schemes and the amount spent by him, being the President of the first respondent-society, no information as sought for by him has been furnished. Hence, he filed the present writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner claims to be a member of the first respondent- society. The first respondent-society is neither a State nor an authority, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. In fact, the petitioner is seeking relief against the second respondent, who appears to be the President of the first respondent-society. Both of them being private parties, the writ petition filed by the petitioner against them, is not maintainable. In fact, the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are neither applicable to the first respondent-society nor the second respondent, who is its President. The provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are applicable only to the Central Government/State Governments/institutions and other authorities working under their control. Hence, the writ petition is not maintainable, and is accordingly dismissed. ______________ N.V.RAMANA, J. Date: 24.06.2008. VGSR