1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 4711 OF 2010. Smt. Shantabai /Chincholkar Shikahsn Sanstha -: VERSUS :- State 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 : OCTOBER 26, 2010. Heard Shri R.L. Khapre, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Mrs. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent no. 1, Shri R.D. Bhuibar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri R. Vyas, learned Counsel for respondent no.3. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Contention of Shri Khapre, learned Counsel for petitioner is, the impugned order passed by respondent no.2 does not show that petitioner – Trust is receiving any aid from State Government, and therefore, falls within the definition of Public Trust. Mrs. Deshpande, learned A.G.P. for respondent no.1 and Shri Bhuibar, learned Counsel appearing for respondent no.2 point out finding that School run by the petitioner is receiving grant-in-aid. Shri Bhuibar, learned Counsel points out that even if petitioner is presumed to be not a Public Authority, information with it can be accessed by 2 the office of the Charity Commissioner because of the provisions of Right to Information Act and information can be supplied to respondent no.3. Shri Vyas, learned Counsel states that on earlier occasion School run by the petitioners has complied with the provisions of Right to Information Act and necessary information has been supplied. He further states that the petitioner will apply afresh to the concerned office of the Charity Commissioner and seek necessary information from it. In view of this, it is apparent that the respondent no.3 is moving appropriate application with competent Authority i.e. with the competent office of the Charity Commissioner at Akola. In view of this decision, it is made clear that the impugned order as it does not show that petitioner is receiving any grant-in-aid is set aside. The respondent no.3 is given liberty to move appropriate application in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly partly allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to cost. JUDGE Rgd.