1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION No. 2989 OF 2010. Shri Priyadarshini Bahuudeshiya Sanstha -: VERSUS :- Ravindra Kandalkar 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 : OCTOBER 11, 2010. Heard Shri Apurv De, learned Counsel for Petitioner, Shri Ravindra Kandalkar – respondent no.1 Inperson and Shri R.D. Bhuibar, learned Counsel for respondent no.2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. Petitioner has moved Civil Application (W) No. 2479/2010, seeking amendment, pointing out that on 02.07.2010 copy of the order imposing costs of Rs.10,000/- passed on 11.06.2010 has been forwarded to the petitioners. As the event is subsequent, the amendment is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out by 25.10.2010. 2 Short contention of Shri De, learned Counsel is, the application filed by respondent no.1 seeking information is addressed to the President of the Trust, and as the Trust is not a Public Authority, as defined under the Right to Information Act, the application is not maintainable. He has pointed out previous history in the matter and has relied upon a judgment of this Court reported at 2009 [4] Mh.L.J. 802 (Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni .vrs. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur). He further states that in application the information in relation to school also is sought, but that application is not addressed to the competent authority having jurisdiction over the school. Shri Bhuibar, learned counsel as also Shri Kandalkar, respondent no.1-inperson are supporting the impugned order. Shri Kandalkar, respondent no.1- inperson has stated that as he has moved several applications from time to time and is attempting to obtain information, by taking false and frivolous or technical pleas, the information is being denied to him. Perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Bhaskarrao Kullarni (supra), reveals that this Court has found that a public trust is not a public authority. The application dated 11.02.2008 moved by the petitioner is 3 addressed to the President of the Public Trust and the application further shows that information in relation to Public Trust as also in relation to Shri Sant Satyadev Primary and Middle School is asked for in it. It appears that the President has on 22.12.2008 rejected that application on the ground that the Trust does not come within the purview of the public authority. The impugned order passed by respondent no.2 either on 07.12.2009 or then on 11.06.2010 does not consider this aspect or then the judgment delivered by this Court on 28.04.2008 (supra). The orders are therefore, unsustainable and hence quashed. However, considering the grievance made by Shri Kandalkar, (respondent-inperson), I find that interest of justice can be met with by directing respondent no.1 to move appropriate application before the Assistant Charity Commissioner in relation to information required by him about the functioning of the petitioner/Public Trust. Respondent no.1 has informed that application moved by him with the school authority is already pending. If any such application is pending the school authorities has to supply the information in accordance with law, and if it is not supplying the information, Shri Kandaklar, respondent no.1 4 is free to take further steps as prescribed under the Right to Information Act. If no such application is moved by the respondent no.1 or the application is not pending, liberty to respondent no1. to file fresh application in accordance with the law. If respondent no.1 moves the school authorities or the Assistant Charity Commissioner seeking information, the said Authority shall see that time schedule prescribed therefore under the Act is strictly adhered too. Shri Kandalkar, respondent no.1 has also requested the court to grant him some costs, as according to him after termination of his services he is financially in bad position. However, in the present situation, his request cannot be considered. With the above observations and directions writ petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms, with no order as to costs. JUDGE Rgd.