1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 5985/2010 (Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti VERSUS Ujjwalkumar Wasudeorao Bagade & another) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri V.D. Raut, counsel for the petitioner. Shri D.B Patel, Assistant Government Pleader for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : JANUARY 7 , 2011 . Heard. By this petition, the petitioner impugns the order passed by the Commissioner, State Information, Bench at Nagpur on 19.03.2010 holding that the provisions of the Right To Information Act, 2005 are applicable to the petitioner Krishi Utpanna Bazar Samiti, Saoner. The State Information Commissioner directed the petitioner to appoint a Public Information Officer as per Section 5(1) of the Right To Information Act, 2005 within a period of three days from the receipt of the order. The Commissioner further directed the petitioner to supply the requested information to the applicant in view of his application dated 26.06.2008, free of costs by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due. According to the Commissioner, in case of the petitioner’s failure to do so, the petitioner would be liable to pay penalty. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner on 19.03.2010 along with the provisions of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development and 2 Regulation) Act, 1963 and the Right To Information Act, 2005, it appears that the State Information Commissioner did not commit any error in holding that the provisions of the Right To Information Act, 2005 are applicable to the petitioner-Committee. The Commissioner rightly held that the Market Committee was established and constituted under the provisions of Chapter 3 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketting (Development and Regulation) Act, 1963 and in view of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the said Act, every Market Committee is deemed to be a local authority for all purposes notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force. On a perusal of the provisions of the Act of 1963, the Commissioner also rightly considered the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Right To Information Act, 2005, which defines a Public Authority to mean any authority or body or institution of State Government established or constituted by any law made by the State Legislature. Since the Act of 1963 is a law made by the State Legislature and the petitioner Market Committee is a body or institution established or constituted under the State law of the year 1963, the Commissioner rightly held that the petitioner Market Committee fell within the definition of the word ‘Public Authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right To Information Act, 2005. In view of the aforesaid position, the Commissioner held that it was necessary for the petitioner Market Committee to appoint a Public Information Officer as per the provisions of Section 5(1) of the Act of 2005 and also supply the necessary information to the applicant in view of his application dated 26.06.2008. 3 Shri Raut, the learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the information has been supplied to the applicant as desired by him in terms of his application dated 26.06.2008 and a Public Information Officer would be positively appointed within a period of four weeks. The statement made on behalf of the petitioner-Committee is accepted. Since the order passed by the Commissioner on 19.03.2010 is just and proper, the same does not call for any interference in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. The petition is, therefore dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE