Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 220 (RAJ)

Ranvir Singh v. Chief Information Commissioner

2014-01-17

AMITAVA ROY, VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 22nd December, 2010 dismissing the writ application of the petitioner/appellant upholding the order dated 28th July, 2010 passed by the Chief Information Commission, Rajasthan. 2. Shron off the unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are : That the Secretary, Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti, Sikar Road, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti', for short) aggrieved by the order dated 26th May, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan (respondent number 2), on an application preferred by the petitioner/appellant seeking certain information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005'); filed an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan (respondent number 1). The appellate authority (respondent number 1) allowed the appeal of the Samiti vide order dated 28th July, 2010 holding that the Samiti was not a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. The petitioner/appellant aggrieved by the order dated 28th July, 2010 preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16874 of 2010, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2010 upholding the judgment and order dated 28th July, 2010 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, reiterating the contents of the pleaded facts in the writ application and in the memo of the appeal, contended that since the Samiti is governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989', for short) and the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grand-in-Aid and Service Conditions) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993', for short); the respondent number 2 has pervasive control over it and funds have been provided to the Samiti by the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly. The orders of the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan and the learned Single Judge have been assailed on the ground that the information could not have been denied though the Samiti did not receive any Government aid since it is not a condition precedent, and the Samiti is very much within the ambit of the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. Moreover, the Samiti did receive grant-in-aid from the Government of Rajasthan and also funds from the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly. 4. Learned counsel, to buttress his submissions, placed reliance on the opinion of the Delhi High Court in the case of : (i) Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee & Ors. v. Mohinder Singh Matharu : AIR 2013 Delhi 3 ; (ii) Dhara Singh Girls High School, Ghaziabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. : AIR 2008 Allahabad 92 ; (iii) D.A.V. College Trust & Management Society & Ors. v. Director of Public Instruction & Ors. : AIR 2008 Punjab and Haryana 117 ; (iv) Committee of Management, Shanti Niketan Inter College & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. : AIR 2009 Allahabad 7 ; (v) Sri. Bhavana Rishi Co-op. House Building Society v. A.P. Information Commission, HACA Bhavan, Hyderabad & Anr. : AIR 2010 Andhra Pradesh 127 and (vi) Ms. Bindu Khanna v. Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi dated 14th July, 2010 passed by the Central Information Commission, New Delhi. 5. In the instant case at hand, the petitioner/appellant contends that the Samiti being a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005 is within the ambit of the Act of 2005 and therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to seek the information as per the details of applications and as directed by the first appellate authority vide order dated 26th May, 2009. The learned counsel then argued that Section 2(h)(c) makes a specific provision to the effect that any authority or body or institution of self-Government or constituted by any other law made by State Legislature; also included, in its ambit the respondent - Samiti, to mean "public authority". 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the materials available on record. 7. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant and perused the materials available on record. 7. Section 2(h) of the Act, 2005, which defines the "public authority", thus:- "(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-Government established or constituted - (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislative; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any - (i) body, owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed; directly and indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government." 8. A bare perusal of the definition as incorporated under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005 would reveal that the Samiti has to fall under any of the clauses (a) to (d) of Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. Further, for the purpose of other bodies, a notification may be issued by the appropriate Government and the requirement for these bodies is (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) Non-Government organisation substantially financed; directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. 9. In the instant case at hand, but for the statement made on behalf of the petitioner/appellant, there is no even an iota of evidence to sustain the allegations that the 'Samiti' is receiving any grant-in-aid from the State Government, though the Samiti is an educational institution. The mere fact that the Samiti is within the ambit of Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993, ipso-facto would not make the 'Samiti'; a body owned, controlled or substantially financed and/or directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. 10. Further, the mere fact of 'no objection certificate' issued by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan and funds provided by the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly would also not bring the 'Samiti' within the ambit of the definition of " public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. The words "and includes any" occurring after Section 2(h)(d) cannot be read conjunctively, for it may lead to a result not intended by the framers of law. 11. The words "and includes any" occurring after Section 2(h)(d) cannot be read conjunctively, for it may lead to a result not intended by the framers of law. 11. In view of the discussions and reasons here-in-above, we are of considered opinion that the Samiti is not covered within the ambit of the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. The view taken by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted and the intra-court appeal is liable to be dismissed. Ordered accordingly. 12. In the result, intra-court appeal is hereby dismissed. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.Appeal Dismissed. *******