1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 1347 OF 2010 (Shri Anandrao R. Dhete vs. Vasanta W. Doye & Anr.) 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. APRIL 28, 2010. Heard finally Shri Ghare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vairagade, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Shri Kankale, learned AGP for respondent No. 2. The petitioner before this Court is Information Officer in the office of Charity Commissioner at Nagpur. Respondent No. 1 sought certain information and as that information is not available with the office of Charity Commissioner, the petitioner made endorsement on 05.01.2009 on that application directing Shri D.J. Lande, Inspector in the office of Charity Commissioner to collect necessary data and to furnish the same to him within seven days. Respondent No. 1 did not get necessary information and hence on 22.01.2009 he applied to Joint Charity Commissioner in that respect. It was treated as appeal and appellate authority on 26.02.2009 directed the petitioner to procure information from Shri Lande, Inspector and to supply it within 30 days i.e. up to 2 27.03.2009. Accordingly, on 25.03.2009, a communication was sent to Respondent No. 1 by the petitioner. On 31.03.2009, the application for supply of information was filed by Respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 then filed Second Appeal under Section 19(3) of Right to Information Act, 2005, (hereinafter referred to as RTI Act) and the State Commissioner for Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, has passed the impugned order after holding that the provisions of law were not complied with in spirit and the authorities have avoided to discharge their statutory obligation. The information was, therefore, directed to be supplied immediately and the departmental enquiry was ordered against the persons found guilty of laches in the matter. The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that as the information was not directly available with the office, the same was required to be procured and that information was to be supplied by public trust. He states that public trust is a public body and not an authority to which the provisions of RTI Act apply and therefore, obtaining information took some time. The reliance is being placed on the judgment in Writ Petition No. 5294 of 2008 dated 28.04.2009 (Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni vs. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur) delivered by this Court to urge that office of Public Trust is not a Public Authority as defined in Section 2(h) of the Act. The learned counsel contend that there was no deliberate delay or malafides in the matter. 3 The learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 support the impugned order. He states that information which needed to be provided within stipulated time as per RTI Act was not supplied and hence action taken is in accordance with law. It is not in dispute before this Court that information sought was in relation to Public Trust and that Public Trust is not a Public Authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. However, the information was sought from the office of the Charity Commissioner and the data sought could have been accessed by the office of the Charity Commissioner in accordance with the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. It is not in dispute that the office of the Charity Commissioner satisfies the requirements of public authority. In this situation, the records before this Court also show that after receipt of application, the petitioner had asked the Inspector to collect necessary information from Public Trust and thereafter the information has been supplied on 25.03.2009. The nature of information sought for shows that all those details cannot be available with the office of Charity Commissioner under the provisions of Bombay Public Trust Act. As the information was thus required to be accessed from a private body, some time has been consumed in the process. There are no allegations of harassment or malafides against the petitioner by Respondent No. 1. In this situation, I find that recommendation to hold departmental enquiry against 4 the petitioner is unwarranted. The petitioner has learnt a lesson in the process and I do not find it necessary to take any other action in the matter against him. It is made clear that if in future Respondent No. 1 or any other person moves the petitioner or office of the Charity Commissioner for similar information, the petitioner and office of the Charity Commissioner shall attempt to comply with the directions of RTI Act in letter and spirit. With these observations, recommendations made by Respondent No. 2 are quashed and set aside. Writ Petition is thus allowed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. JUDGE *GS.