JUDGMENT 1. Heard finally by consent of Shri. P. S. Khubalkar, learned counsel for petitioner, Shri. R. D. Bhuibar, learned counsel for respondent no. 1, Shri. Jaiswal, learned counsel for respondent no.2 and Shri. A. K. Sukhdeve, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. It is not in dispute between the parties that the petitioner - School is not a public authority as defined under Section 2[h] of the Right to Information Act. However, Shri. Sukhdeve, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.3 argues that provisions of Section 2[f] of the Act are very clear and information in relation to functioning of private body which can be accessed by public authority like respondent no.2 needs to be supplied to respondent no.3. He points out that respondent no.3 had initially moved the petitioner and, thereafter, respondent no.2 Education Officer as Appellate Authority. He and Shri. Bhuibar, learned counsel both state that as respondent no.2 definitely fits in the definition of public Authority, therefore owes obligation to procure such information and furnish it to respondent no.3. 3. Learned A.G.P. for respondent no.2 states that after respondent no.3 approached it, respondent no.2 has directed the petitioner to supply necessary information to respondent no.3. 4. The position clearly reveals that respondent no.2 has to secure information and supply it to respondent no.3. There is no question of respondent no.2 directing respondent no.3 to go to petitioner to procure that information or then directing petitioner to supply that information to respondent no.3. In the circumstances, respondent no.2 is directed to procure information demanded by respondent no.3 from petitioner in accordance with law and to supply the same to respondent no.3 by 16.08.2010. 5. With these directions, the impugned order asking petitioner to supply information directly to respondent no.3 are quashed and set aside. Rule accordingly. No costs. Certified copy expedited. Ordered accordingly.