PEOPLE WELFARE SOCIETY Vs. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Full Bench has been constituted to answer the following question:

(2.) The need for formulating the above question arose on account of a discord found by the learned Division Bench between various decisions of this Court taking opposite views on the above issue, by one set of judgments holding that the Trust/Society running an educational institution, which educational institution was receiving grants from the Government, would not fall within the definition of 'Public Authority', as it was the educational institution which was receiving the grants and not the Trust/Society and therefore information vis-a-vis the affairs of the Trust/Society as opposed to information in respect of the educational institution, could not be termed as 'information' within the meaning of the expression as defined in Sec. 2(f) of the Right to Information Act ('RTI Act' for short hereinafter) so as to invoke the jurisdiction of the authorities under the RTI Act to enforce its disclosure. These judgments are :

(3.) Mr. Parsodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that though the petitioner/Trust, runs two educational institutions/Colleges, however, what was being sought was the information related to the Trust and not the Educational Intuitions and such information could not be directed to be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act, as the Trust, did not fall within the definition of a 'Public Authority', as defined in sec.2(h) of the said Act. He contends that even if the State was providing salary and non-salary grants to the institutions, that may bring in the Educational Institutions within the ambit of the RTI Act, but not the Trust, as the providing of salary and non-salary grants, by the State was as a matter of policy to all the aided institutions, in the State and therefore the information in respect of the Trust could not be said to be information capable of being directed to be disclosed under the provisions of the RTI Act. He further contends that even if the Trust was subject to the statutory supervision of the Charity Commissioner under the Maharashtra Public Trust Act, the same would not make the Trust a 'public authority', under Sec. 2(h) of the RTI Act and even the Charity Commissioner, would not be able to solicit information from the trust or supply information, to a person soliciting it, under the aegis of the RTI Act. Learned Counsel in support of these submissions places reliance upon the judgments quoted above supporting this view and S.S.Angadi Vs. State Chief Information Commissioner, Bangalore and anr. AIR 2008 Kar 149.