1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Jaipur Mahila Wholesale Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd., Mahila Chikitshalaya, Sanganeri Gate, Jaipur Vs. Nanag Ram Sharma & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13551/2008) S.B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Date of Order :- 09th February, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr.Ram Kumar Sharma, for the petitioner. Mr.G.P. Sharma, for the respondent No.1. Aggrieved by the order dated 07.11.2007 and by the order dated 03.11.2008, the petitioner has challenged the same before this Court. By the former order, the Administrator, Jaipur Mahila Wholesale Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. had accepted the respondent's appeal under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ('the Act of 2005', for short) and had directed the petitioner to give copies of the documents asked for by the respondent No.1, Nanag Ram Sharma. By the latter order, the Chief Information Commission has upheld the former order. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society. Although the Society is run by a Management Committee, but presently an Administrator 2 (Joint Registrar) has been vested with all the powers of Management Committee. The respondent No.1 had submitted an application on 10/13.08.2007 to the petitioner seeking certain information under the provisions of the Act of 2005. According to the said application, the respondent No.1 has sought information with regard to certain medical bills, with regard to the working of the certain pharmacists in the Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. and with regard to the appointments of certain pharmacists. However, instead of giving the information sought by the respondent No.1, the General Manager of the petitioner declined to give the required information vide letter dated 29.08.2007. The respondent No.1, Nanag Ram Sharma, thereafter filed an appeal before the Administrator. The Administrator passed the order dated 07.11.2007 whereby, as mentioned above, he accepted Nanag Ram's appeal. The petitioner submitted an application before the Administrator for recalling/reviewing of the order dated 07.11.2007. However, the Administrator dismissed the said application on the ground that the power of review does not exist with him. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court, registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10528/2007. However, vide order dated 07.01.2008, this Court dismissed the said writ petition ostensibly on the ground that the petitioner could file an appeal under Section 19(3) of the Act of 2005 before the Rajasthan Information Commission. Consequently, the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Commission. But vide order dated 3 03.11.2008, the learned Commission dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Hence, this petition before this Court. Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has raised two contentions before this Court : firstly, the RTI Act covers those institutions or authorities which are declared to be “public authority”. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner, Co-operative Society, does not fall within the said definition. Hence, it is not covered under the provisions of the Act of 2005. Secondly, since the information sought by Nanag Ram related to trade secret, the protection of Section 8(1)(d) of the Act should be extended to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner cannot be compelled to give copies of the documents sought by the respondent No.1. On the other hand, Mr. G.P. Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has vehemently contended that similar issues were raised before this Court in case of General Manager, Jaipur Mahila Wholesale Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. Vs. Rajasthan Information Commission and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.55/2010, decided on 06th January, 2010), wherein this Court has held that the petitioner, Co- operative Society does fall within the definition of “public authority” as defined under Section 2 of the Act of 2005. Moreover, it has held that information like the one sought by Mr. Nanag Ram does not fall within the prohibited clauses 4 mentioned in Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005. According to the learned counsel, the case of General Manager, Jaipur Mahila Wholesale Sahkari Upbhokta Bhandar Ltd. (Supra) squarely covers the controversy involved in the present case. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the record, and considered the case law cited at the bar. Section 2(h) defines the term 'public authority' :- “Public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted: (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by the State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; A bare perusal of the Section 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii) makes it abundantly clearly that in case a non-government organization is substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government, then it is a “public authority”. In the present case, the petitioner is substantially funded by the appropriate Government. For, out of a total fund of Rs.7.25 lac share capital of the petitioner, most of it is funded by the appropriate Government. This fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Thus, the finding of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner, Co- operative Society, is a “public authority” cannot be faulted. 5 Section 8(1)(d) of the Act of 2005 is as under :- Section 8(1)(d): (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this case, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen- (d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information A bare perusal of the said Section clearly reveals that it does not cover the present case. The information sought by Nanag Ram does not deal with trade secret. In fact an innocuous information has been sought which would not harm the interest of the petitioner, Co-operative Society. Thus, the benefit of Section 8(1)(d) cannot be extended to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, neither of the impugned orders suffer from any illegality, or from any perversity. For the reasons stated above, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S.CHAUHAN)J. Manoj Solanki-