IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 26TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 4TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 24324 of 2011(M) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ---------------------- 1. MAR DIONYSIUS COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR - 680 542. 2. PRINCIPAL, MAR DIONYSIUS COLLEGE, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR - 680 542. 3. P.C. CHERIANKUNJU, MAR DIONYSIUS COLLEGE, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR - 680 542. BY ADV. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL, SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL. RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 2. THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01. 3. C.B. SUBHASH, ADVOCATE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-3. 4. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -01. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN. R2 & R4 BY SR. GOVT. PLEADER SMT.M.J. RAJASREE. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/09/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs WP(C).No. 24324 of 2011(M) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE LETTER OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER DATED 08/12/2010. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE REPLY OF THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 14/12/2010. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 21/01/2011 OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/01/2011 OF THE 3RD PETITIONER. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 01/03/2011. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT BY THE 3RD PETITIONER DATED 16/04/2011. EXT.P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 05/07/2011. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:- NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) No. 24324 of 2011 M ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 26th day of September, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ First petitioner is an aided College affiliated to Calicut University and established by the Malankara Orthodox Church and administered by the Corporate Management of the said Church. Second petitioner is its Principal and the third petitioner is the State Public Information Officer appointed by the College. In this writ petition, they are seeking to quash Ext.P7, an order passed by the first respondent, on a complaint filed by the third respondent, invoking his rights under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and overruling the objection raised by the petitioners that they are not public authorities as contemplated under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. It is in the said circumstances, the writ petition is filed with the aforesaid prayer and also seeking a declaration that Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is W.P.(C) No.24324/2011 : 2 : inapplicable to the College, it being a minority educational institution. The fact that the college in question of which the first petitioner is the Manager is an aided college affiliated to the Calicut University is not in dispute. The question as to whether aided colleges are public authorities under the Act has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the judgment in Sree Narayana College Vs. State of Kerala [2010 (1) KLT 691], where it has been held that the colleges are public authorities amenable to the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. However, counsel for the petitioners contended that the aforesaid judgment has no relevance in so far as minority educational institutions like the college is concerned and in support of the contention, he relied on the observations contained in paragraph 288 of the Apex court judgment in T.M.A. Pai Foundation and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others [(2002) 8 SCC 481]. However, a reading of the judgment shows that, what is relied on by the learned counsel W.P.(C) No.24324/2011 : 3 : for the petitioner that the minority educational institution can no longer be regarded as an authority is a dissenting opinion expressed by one of the Judges in the judgment referred to above. Further, that opinion has no relevance in the context of the provisions of the Right to Information Act. 3. Then, the counsel relied on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Bhanunni A.C. @ Valluvanattukara Vallabha Valiya Raja Vs. Commissioner, HR & CE (Admn.) Department and others [ILR 2011 (2) Ker 237]. In that judgment, it was held that temples and their offices are not established under the Constitution of India or any other law made either by the Parliament or State Legislature or by notification issued by any government. On that basis, it was held that they do not answer the requirements of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act to be amenable to the provisions of the said Act. In my view, the principles laid down in the judgment has no relevance in so far as the aided college in question is concerned and, W.P.(C) No.24324/2011 : 4 : therefore, the judgment cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners to challenge Ext.P7. 4. Then, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on Article 15(5) of the Constitution of India, which only entitles the State to make laws concerning the subjects mentioned therein notwithstanding the provisions contained in the main Article. In my view, that Article of the Constitution of India also has no relevance to the issue raised in the writ petition. 5. In the result, I am of the opinion that the issues canvassed in the writ petition are fully covered against the petitioners by the judgment in Sree Narayana College's case (Supra). Therefore, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/26/09 // True Copy // P.A. To Judge