IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1046 of 2011 Committee of Management, Montfort Children Academy, Laksar, District Haridwar ...Petitioner Versus State Information Commission and others …Respondents. Present : Mr. A. V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the State Information Commission. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Sri A. V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri Vipul Sharma, Advocate for the State Information Commission. The petitioner has challenged an order of the State Information commission dated 26.4.2011 (Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition) whereby the petitioner has been directed to furnish information to the public authority i.e. the District Education Officer and in case the petitioner does not do the same, proceedings will be initiated against it for derecognition. The petitioner is a committee of management of a school known as “Montfort Children Academy, Laksar, District Haridwar.” According to the petitioner, it is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (from hereinafter referred to as the Act). Without going into this aspect, what cannot be disputed is that the public authority can seek information from the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. Therefore, if the petitioner submits all the information it is liable to give under the law within 15 days from today, no further action as is directed under order dated 26.4.2011 shall be taken. Counsel for the 2 petitioner undertakes to furnish the information to the public authorities i.e. District Education officer within 15 days from today. It is clarified that the words “information” and “right to information” are already defined under the Act. This Court in its judgment in Asian Education Charitable Society and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in AIR 2010 Uttarakhand 72 has further explained as to what is “information” and “right to information”. Moreover, what is the nature of information a third party is liable to furnish before a public authority has also been explained. It is directed that the petitioner must give to the public authority all the information which it is liable to give under the law in view of the Act as well as in view of judgment of this Court in Asian Education Charitable Society’s case (supra). With these observations, writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Let certified copy of this order be issued today itself on payment of usual charges. Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 27.5.2011 Avneet