- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS is the admitted case that the information which was sought from the petitioner-appellant related to Gumla district, and whatever are the functions of the appellant in Gumla district, are financed by the Government of Jharkhand. In that view of the matter, it is covered by the definition of Public Authority. Thus, it cannot be said that the information which was sought from the appellant will not be covered by the Right to Information Act. The learned counsel for the appellant further urged that they have been described to be a Public Authority for all other regions also. This question is not germen in the present controversy and as and when this question arises, the appellant will be at liberty to raise the same. As far as Gumla is concerned, the appellant is under obligation to provide the information which is sought for by the person concerned.;