Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 917 (ALL)

Committee of Management, Shanti Niketan Inter College v. State of U. P.

2008-04-24

RAKESH TIWARI

body2008
ORDER :- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, learned Standing counsel for the State and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents not to take any action against the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for not providing information sought by respondent No. 6 in the aforesaid Act. 3. Shanti Niketan inter College, Barhi District Ghazipur is recognized institution. The provisions of High School and Intermediate Education Act as well as Payment of Salaryies Act to the Teachers and Other Staff, 1971 are applicable to it. Respondent No. 6 has sought certain information under the Right to Information Act, which is being resisted by the institution on the ground that the said Act is not applicable and the institution is not bound to give information to respondent No. 6. 4. The petitioner has relied upon an interim order passed in writ petition 10069 of 2008, Committee of Management Sri Daya Nand Inter College v. State of U.P. and others, which is as under :- "Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6. Issue notice to respondent No. 7 within a week returnable within seven weeks. Steps to be taken within a week. All may file their counter affidavits by the next date. List after seven weeks. It is contended that the Committee of Management of a private institution which is recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government does not come with the description of the public authority as per Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A prima facie case is made out for interim order. Till the next date of listing, no action shall be taken against the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. A prima facie case is made out for interim order. Till the next date of listing, no action shall be taken against the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005. 5. After considering the provisions of the Right to Information Act including Section 2(h) of the Act in detail this Court had passed a detail judgment in civil writ petition No. 4747 of 2008, reported in AIR 2008 All 92 : (2008) 2 All LJ 477 Dhara Singh Girls High School, Gaushala Roac Ghaziabad through its Manager, Virendra Chaudhary v. State of U.P. and others whereas dismissing the writ petition, the Court has held :- "In my opinion, whenever there is even an iota of nexus regarding control and finance of public authority over the activity of a private body or institution or an organization etc. the same would fall under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Act. The provisions of the Act have to be read in consonance and in harmony with its objects and reasons given in the Act which have to be given widest meaning in order to ensure that unscrupulous persons do not get benefits of concealment of their illegal activities or illegal acts by being exempted under the Act and are able to hide nothing from the public. The working of any such organization or institution of any such private body owned or under control of public authority shall be amenable to the Right to Information Act. The petitioner being an institution recognized under the provisions of U.P. High School and Intermediate Education Act, 1929 and receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government is therefore, covered under the aforesaid Act. 6. The facts of the case are covered by the aforesaid decisions and even in case where a private or a non-government organization college receives financial grant from the State Government or is regulated by the provisions of Act such as the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Payment of Salaries Act to Teachers and Other Staff 1971 it would still be covered by the definition given in Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 7. At this stage the petitioner states that since aforesaid judgment was not to his knowledge, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition. 8. The writ petition is therefore dismissed as withdrawn. Petition dismissed.