1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 1912 OF 2010. Manikrao Gulabrao Tatte -: VERSUS :- The State Information Commission and another. 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 : AUGUST 23, 2010. Heard Shri A.S. Chandurkar, learned Counsel for petitioner, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.3, Shri R.D. Bhuibar learned Counsel for Respondent no.1 and Shri Singane, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. By relying upon judgment of this Court reported at 2009 (6) Mh.L.J. 85 (Nagar Yuvak Shikshan Sanstha and another ..versus.. Maharashtra State Information Commission and another), 2009 (3) Mh.L.J. 364 (Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. .vrs. State Information Commissioner, and others) and un-reported 2 judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 5294/2008 dated 28.04.2009 (Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni .vrs. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur and others) Shri Chandurkar, learned Counsel contends that the information in relation to petitioner / public trust cannot be directed to be supplied by the petitioner to respondent no.2. He points out that in application dated 14.07.2007 information was sought for on two aspects. After the order of the Deputy Charity Commissioner, Amravati dated 05.10.2007 in Appeal No. 2/2007, information in relation to Schools as sought for in paragraph no. 6[2] of the application has been furnished. According to him, there can be no direction in relation to information as sought for in clause 1 of paragraph no.6. Respective counsel for respondents have pointed out that the application was considered earlier by the Assistant Charity Commissioner and said Authority on 05.10.2007 found that the application was not maintainable and the appeal could have been filed before the competent Officer. Accordingly Appeal No.2/2007 was considered by the competent Authority on the same date and the appellate Authority found that it had no jurisdiction and the counsel for petitioner undertook to supply information. Because of that statement, the application/appeal as filed, was not 3 pressed by respondent no.2. They contend that in view of the provisions of Section 2[f] of the Right to Information Act, information which can be accessed by respondent no.3 is also information which is covered by the said Act and hence the present writ petition is misconceived. It is apparent that the counsel for petitioner has accepted before the Appellate Authority to supply information and therefore the respondent no.2 has withdrawn the application. The distinction between the information as sought for in two sub-paragraphs of paragraph no.6 of application dated 14.07.2007 being made by the petitioners was not then pressed into service. The acceptance to supply information is unconditional. In any case as per the various judgment it is settled position that the petitioner trust cannot be treated as a public authority, however, that does not mean that the information with it cannot be accessed under the Right to Information Act. The said information is therefore required to be provided by the office of respondent no.3 by procuring the same from the petitioner. Accessibility of said information by the Charity Commissioner Office is not in dispute. Hence, respondent no.2 is entitled to information either from respondent no.3 or from petitioner. But here the 4 petitioner itself has undertaken before the respondent no.3 to supply the said information to respondent no.2. In view of this position, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. Writ Petition is thus rejected. No costs. JUDGE Rgd.