1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1812 OF 2010. Vidarbha Vibhagiy Machhimar Sangh Maryadit -: VERSUS :- Government of Maharashtra and others. 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. DATED : JULY 14, 2010. Heard finally by consent of Shri R.S. Kale, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri O.D. Kakde, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri M.P. Kariya, learned counsel for respondent no.3. Short grievance by Shri Kale, learned counsel for petitioner is that though the Second Appellate Authority has directed respondent no.1 to supply information, respondent no.1 has directed present petitioner to supply that information to respondent no.3. According to him this course of action is unsustainable. Shri Karia, learned counsel for respondent no.3 states that respondent no.3 is entitled to information and he is not really concerned who gives that information. He however, accepts that the information has to be supplied by respondent no.1. 2 Shri Kakde, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 states that as the information pertains to working of petitioner, the direction has been issued. With the assistance of respective counsel, I have perused the relevant provisions. It is apparent that the definition of information in Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 specifically includes the information relating any private body which can be assessed by the public authority under any law for the time being in force. Thus the question, whether the petitioner is or is not a public authority need not be gone into in this matter, as admittedly the direction is to respondent no.1. The respondent no.1 has to therefore exercise his statutory powers and seek information and supply it to respondent no.3. He cannot direct the petitioner to supply that information to respondent no.3. The respondent no.1 therefore to comply with the directions issued by the Second Appellate Authority. The Communication dated 11.02.2010 issued to the petitioner is misconceived and unsustainable, the same is accordingly quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is accordingly allowed, with no orders as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.