1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.4327 of 2010 (Public Information Officer, Gondia v. The State Information Commissioner, Nagpur, and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri N.N. Mothghare, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri A.B. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri D.V. Mahajan, Advocate for Respondent No.3. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 20 th April, 2011 1. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 6-5-2010 passed in Appeal No.358/NAG/2010 by the State Information Commissioner, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur, holding that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are applicable to the petitioner-Society and directed it to furnish the information asked for by the appellant in the said appeal. 3. Shri Mothghare, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Society, was granted time on 6-4-2011 to file an affidavit stating as to whether the School run by the petitioner-Society is receiving the grant-in-aid, though such a finding is recorded by the respondent No.1-State Information 2 Commissioner in his judgment and order impugned. The learned counsel has filed an additional affidavit dated 20-4-2011. There is no statement made on oath that the School run by the petitioner-Society is not receiving the grant-in-aid from the State exchequer. However, he makes an oral statement that the School run by the petitioner-Society is receiving the salary grant only. 4. In view of this factual position, the matter is covered by the judgment delivered by this Court in Writ Petition No.5168 of 2010 along with other connected matter, on 29-3-2011, wherein it has been held that the provisions of the Right to Information Act are applicable to the Society running the School receiving the grant-in-aid from the State exchequer. 5. In the result, there is no substance in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. The petitioner-Society is, however, granted one month’s time to comply with the directions issued by the respondent No.1-State Information Commissioner. Judge pdl