1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. L.P.A. NO.287 OF 2009. IN W.P.NO.5294 OF 2009 (D) PRAVIN S/O ACHYUTRAO MAHAJAN V STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, VIDARBHA REGION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS. Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for the appellant. CORAM : B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND F.M.REIS, JJ Dated : 28th July, 2009. 1. Heard. 2. The challenge is to judgment dated 28-4-2009 delivered by the learned Single Judge, allowing the Writ Petition and holding that the public Trust is not a public authority under Section 4 of Right to Information Act. 3. By placing reliance upon the Judgment of apex Court reported in AIR 1976 SC page 888, the learned Counsel for the appellant has tried to contend that how concept of public authority or statutory authority has been understood judicially is apparent from said judgment. He argues that the said analogy is squarely applicable to the public Trust and hence, public Trust must be held to be public authority. 3. We are unable to accept this argument 2 based upon the analogy because for the purpose of Right to Information Act, the public authority has been denied and that definition is exhaustive. As such, there is no scope of going to any other provision for its interpretation. It is apparent that a public trust is not a separate or distinct legal entity, and therefore, not an authority or body or institution as envisaged in opening part of such definition of Section 4. Learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly found in para 8 of impugned judgment that the public trust does not fall in any of the categories i.e. categories (a) to (d) of said Section 4. 4. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE /Muley/