1 wp-3544-10 pdp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3544 OF 2010 Shri Siddheshwar Cancer Hospital and Research Centre, Solapur .. Petitioner Vs. 1. The State Information Commissioner Pune Region, Pune and ors. .. Respondents Mr. A. A. Kumbhakoni with Mr. T.D. Deshmukh and Mr. R. S. Alange for petitioner. Ms. P. S. Cardozo, AGP for respondent nos.1 and 3. Mr. S. R. Ganbavale for respondent no.4. CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE & U. D. SALVI, JJ. OCTOBER 01, 2010. P.C. 1. Heard Mr. Kumbhakoni with Mr. Deshmukh and Mr. Alange for petitioner. Ms. Cardozo, AGP, appears for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Mr. Ganbavale appears for respondent no.4. 2 wp-3544-10 2. The petitioner – Public Trust is aggrieved by the order dated 9/10/2009 passed by the State Information Commissioner (SIC) in Second Appeal filed under Section 19(3) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act for short). By the said order, the SIC has allowed the appeal partly and directed the petitioner-trust to give inspection of the documents to the applicant (respondent no.4). 3. The SIC noted that the petitioner being a public trust, per se, would not be a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, but in case it is receiving directly or indirectly financial aid from the State Government, it would fall within the realm of public authority. As there was no sufficient record available to examine as to whether the trust is in receipt of public funds/Government funds directly or indirectly, the impugned order has been passed by directing inspection of documents and the appeal has been disposed as partly allowed, which in our opinion could not have been done. It was necessary to keep the appeal pending, direct the applicant to submit inspection report and then decide as to whether the appellant-trust satisfies the requirements for being called as a public authority under the RTI Act. 3 wp-3544-10 4. Mr. Kumbhakoni the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-trust has fairly stated before us that the audited accounts of the trust as well as the institutions run by it would be placed before the SIC so that the issue as to whether the petitioner-trust is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is decided in the appeal. 5. We, therefore, allow this petition partly and quash and set aside the impugned order dated 9/10/2009. We restore the appeal to the file of the SIC (Pune Bench) and direct the petitioner to submit the audited accounts of the trust as well as its institutions/establishments for the financial years ended on 31/3/2009 and 31/3/2010 within a period of four weeks from today before the SIC. Undoubtedly, the original applicant will have the right to inspection of these documents after they are submitted. The second appeal be decided de novo on all the points as per law and as expeditiously as possible. (U.D. SALVI, J.) (B. H. MARLAPALLE, J.)