IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1546 of 2009 1. M.P.Singh Foundation, having its office at C-493 Yojna Vihar, Delhi-92 through its authorized signatory Shri Sunil Saini. 2. Delhi Public School Rajpur Road, Dehradun through its authorized signatory Shri Sunil Saini. … Petitioners. Versus 1. State of Uttarakhand service through Principal Secretary, Higher Education, Dehradun and five others. … Respondents. Mr.G.S.Joshi Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Arvind Vashist, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 3. Date April 06, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing all proceedings initiated against the petitioners by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act 2005 (for short the Act) including letter dated 11-1-2008 bearing reference no. 404/Shikayat Sankhya: 802(2)/U.Su.Aa./2008 (Annexure-2), GO No. 8/XXIV(6)/2008 dated 6-2-2008 (Annexure-3), letter dated 27-4-2009 sent by District Education Officer Dehradun (Annexure-5), order dated 23- 6-2009 passed by Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri (Annexure-6), Second Appeal filed by respondent no. 6 before Chief Information Commissioner and letter bearing reference no. 16988-89/Su.Ka.A./2009-10 dated 28-8-2009 written by District Education Officer Dehradun (Annexure-9 to the petition). The contention of the petitioners is that the petitioners are not authorities, or bodies or institutions of self-government. Neither they are authorities, nor bodies nor institutions established or constituted by or under the Constitution or under any law made by the Parliament and State Legislature. They are also not 2 established or constituted by and under any notification or order made by the Government. The petitioners are not owned, controlled and financed directly or indirectly by any government. Therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to them, petitioners not being ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similar controversy was involved in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2009(MS) Asian Education Charitable Society and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others and this Court vide order dated 9-2-2010 has disposed of the writ petition along with 12 other writ petitions. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the present writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2009(MS). Learned counsel for the State has fairly conceded that the controversy involved in the present writ petition is almost identical to that involved in WPMS No. 2038 of 2009, Asian Education Charitable Society and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. I have perused the order dated 9-2-2010. In the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioners have claimed that cognizance cannot be taken against them by Public Information Officers as well as by the State Information Commission under the Act. The controversy involved in the present writ petition stands squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2009. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of in terms of the order dated 9th February 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 2038 of 2009(MS) Asian Education Charitable Society and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. Costs easy. ( B.S.Verma, J.) RCP 3