1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.4264 OF 2008 Karmaveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society, Amrutdham, Panchwati, Nashik Through its Secretary, Devram S/o.Shankar Shinde, Age-74 years, Occu-Service, R/o.Amrutdham, Panchwati, Nashik, District Nashik. PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The Assistant Charity Commissioner Kharwanda Park, Nashik, District Nashik. 2. Vilas Sahebrao Gadakh, At and Post : Sukane, Tq.Niphad, District : Nashik. 3. The State of Maharashtra, RESPONDENTS Mr.V.D.Hon, advocate for petitioners. Mr.K.B.Chaudhary, for respondent no.1 and 3 Respondent no.2 absent even though duly served. (CORAM : A.V.POTDAR, J.) DATE : 09/07/2009 2 ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. By the present writ petition under Article 227 r.w. 226 of The Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order passed in Appeal No.2007/RMA/APL/CR/1258, passed by The State Information Commissioner, Aurangabad bench at Aurangabad, dated 16/06/2008, by which the appeal was partly allowed and directions were given to the Public Relation and Information Officer of the first respondent to furnish the information to the appellant therein, who is respondent no.2 in the present writ petition within the period of 7 days. Also directions were given to the petitioners to appoint Public Information Officer within the period of 7 days. 2. Rule. 3. Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, writ petition is heard at the stage of admission itself. 4. In brief, the facts gave rise to file the present writ petition can be summarized as the petitioner is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950 and also registered under the Societies Registration Act. The second respondent preferred an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act to the Secretary of the petitioner seeking the information from the petitioner trust. Reply was given by the petitioner after receipt of this application and it was informed that as there was no General Body Meeting, therefore the copy of the proceedings of the alleged General 3 Body Meeting can not be supplied. Second respondent has challenged this communication dated 29/08/2006 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner, first respondent in this writ petition. After hearing the parties, the claim of the second respondent was dismissed/denied by the first respondent. It appears that and as alleged to harass the petitioner, again 2nd respondent filed fresh application of the similar nature. This application was replied by the petitioner that the provisions of Right to Information Act are not attracted as the petitioner is not covered or financed by the Government and coming within the provisions of Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act. Again the 2nd respondent filed appeal no.11/2007 before the Assistant Charity Commissioner challenging the communication of the petitioner dated 26/09/2006. It further appears that the Assistant Charity Commissioner after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that as the 2nd respondent has not mentioned the purpose for which the information is sought, therefore rejected the application of the 2nd respondent. 2nd respondent has challenged this order by filing an appeal u/s.19 of the Right to Information Act before the State Information Commissioner, bench at Aurangabad. The State Information Commissioner has passed the order dated 16/06/2008, the impugned order under the present writ petition. 5. Heard advocate for applicant petitioner, followed by the arguments of learned AGP for respondent no.1 and 3. Respondent no.2 who has applied under the Right to Information Act is absent 4 even though duly served. Considering the submissions across the bar the only point for consideration is whether the provisions under the Right to Information Act are applicable to the petitioner institution or not. In support of the submissions of petitioner, reliance is placed upon the reported judgment in 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 365 in the matter of Dr.Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amravati versus State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region Nagpur and others. It is observed in para no.12 and 13 of the said cited judgment that Right to Information Act is not applicable to the institutions, who are not public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. It is not under dispute that the petitioner is a trust registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act as well as also registered under the provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner is a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of The Right to Information Act. If the petitioner is not a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of The Right to Information Act, then the provisions under the Right to Information Act are not applicable to the petitioner institution. Once this legal proposition is clear that the provisions under the Right to Information Act are not attracted and applicable to the petitioner institution, then the order passed by the State Information Commissioner vide order dated 16/06/2008 is the order passed under the provisions of the Right to Information Act under the assumption that the provisions of Right to Information Act are applicable to the petitioner institution. Once it is held that the 5 provisions under Right to Information Act are not applicable to the institution of the petitioner, then the order passed by the State Information Commissioner is nullity in the eye of Law and if it is so, then the order dated 16/06/2008, the impugned order under this writ petition is required to be quashed and set aside and accordingly it is quashed and set aside. 6. Rule thus made absolute as indicated above, and writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. (A.V.POTDAR, J.) khs/JULY 2009/wp4264-08