1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 2198 OF 2010 (Nagpur Zilla Parishad Prathmik Shikshak Sahakari Path Sanstha vs. Rajendra Tanbaji Satai & Ors.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J. JUNE 08, 2010. Heard Shri Dangre, learned counsel for the petitioner. The contention of the petitioner is as the Cooperative Society is registered under Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, the provisions of Right to Information Act are not applicable as it is not the public authority. In the alternative, it is contended that Respondent No. 1 ought to have joined present petitioner as party respondent. Shri Dangre, learned counsel points out that the direction has been rejected by Competent authority and it has been maintained by the appellate authority. Direction has been issued by 2nd appellate authority for the first time directing Respondent No. 1 to procure documents/ information from the petitioner and to supply it to Respondent No.1. He contends that Respondent No. 1 is a suspended employee and in earlier round he sought similar information. After noticing that the petitioner is not a public authority, the proceedings were dismissed and in second round, he did 2 not join the petitioner. It is to be noted that the provisions of Right to Information Act define information in Section 2(F) as documents/ material or information available to public authority even though it may be of private body. Thus, private body need not be a public authority but the authority which is seeking such information or which is moved for procuring such information should be a Public authority. The judgment of this Court in the case of Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Limited, Amravati vs. State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, reported at 2009 (3) Mh. L.J. 364 only considers the question whether Cooperative Society is a public authority or not. In present matter, the appellate authority in Second Appeal has issued direction to Respondent No.4 to procure information and supply to Respondent No.1. I, therefore, do not find any jurisdictional error or perversity in the matter. Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.