IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No.1385 of 2010 (M/S) Saraswati Shiksha Samiti & others ………..Petitioners Versus State Information Commissioner & others …….Respondents Shri Jitendra Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri P.C. Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State. Shri Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Dated: 05th August, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Present petition has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the impugned letter dated 03.05.2010 (Annexure-14) and for issuing a writ of prohibition against the respondents, prohibiting them from applying the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short the Act) to the institution of the petitioners. Further prayer has been made for a direction to the respondents that they may not compel the petitioners to provide information to the respondent no.4 in pursuance to the letter dated 19.04.2010 (Annexure-13). Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the writ petition, are that petitioners are societies registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 2 1860 who are running schools for providing education upto junior High school level in District Udham Singh Nagar. The Schools/institutions run by the petitioners are unaided, self financed, privately managed institutions and the respondent Basic Education Department has granted recognition to all the schools as unaided institutions and role of education department is only to maintain education standards as per the provisions of Basic Education Act. The Right to Information Act, 2005 was enacted with the aim and objective for setting up a practical regime of right to information for the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authority, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The contention of the petitioners is that they are neither a body constituted under the Constitution or Parliament or State Legislature, nor a body which has been constituted vide any notification issued or order made by the appropriate government and not owned, controlled or even substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government hence they are not “Public Authority”. On 19.04.2010, the respondent no.4 send a letter to the respondent nos.1 & 2 through S.D.M. Kashipur, seeking certain informations from the respondent nos.1 & 2 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 in relation to the institutions run by the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondent no.2 forwarded that letter to respondent no.2 for necessary action. Then, the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 03.05.2010 directed to all Sankul Prabhary, Vikash Khand Jaspur, Udham Singh Nagar to collect the required informations from all the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by this Court on 09.02.2010 in writ petition no.2038 of 2009 (M/S) “Asian Education Charitable Society and another Vs. State of Uttarakhand & others”. I have perused the judgment of this Court in which it has been held that the private institutions would be treated as third party for the purpose of the Act. If any information was to be sought from the institution, the notice under Section-11 of the Act can be given to them and they are obliged to give information, if they are not covered under Section-8 of the Act. In view of the judgment of this Court in writ petition no.2038 of 2009 (M/S), the petitioners cannot be said public authority but the petitioners are obliged to give information to the Public Information Officer of the Education Department as provided under Section 11 of the Act. In view of above discussion, it is held that petitioners are not public authority as defined under the Act and they cannot be compelled to give information under the Act to private individual. However, the petitioners are directed to give 4 information to the respondent no.3, as provided in Section 11 of the Act within a period of 3 weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of finally. Stay application no. 6454 of 2010 also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) Arpan 05.08.2010