JUDGMENT : PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J. 1. In wake of instant surge in COVID-19 cases and spread of its highly infectious Omicron variant, lawyers have been advised to refrain from coming to the Courts. 2. Looking to the commonality of the issues involved in the present petitions, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common order. 3. For the sake of brevity, the facts and the prayer clauses are being taken from SBCWP NO. 4784/2012, while treating the same as a lead case. "(i) By an appropriate writ, order or direction, Your Lordship may kindly be pleased to accept and allowed this writ petition. (ii). By an appropriate writ, order or direction, your Lordship may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondents no. 2- learned Chief Information Commissioner Rajasthan, in Appeal No. 104/2011 titled as Smt. Mardula Mehta v. Public Information officer District Education officer Secondary Jodhpur. (iii). By an appropriate writ, order or direction, cost of the petition may kindly be awarded in favour of the humble petitioner." 4. Despite service, none-appears for the private respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the mandate of Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, particularly the definition given in Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner does not fall within the domain of the Public Authority and thus, is not bound to respond to the RTI application. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the mandate of Right to Information Act (RTI), 2005, particularly the definition given in Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005, the petitioner does not fall within the domain of the Public Authority and thus, is not bound to respond to the RTI application. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a specific averments that earlier the same has been recorded by the learned appellate authority in RTI application in the order dated 04.01.2011 (Annexure-7), which reads as follows:- ^^1- vihykfFkZ;k vuqifLFkr A 2- ÁR;FkhZ i{k ls Jh lqjs'k ey fla?koh mifLFkrA mUgksaus esjk /;ku vihyksRrj fnukad 11&08&2010 dh vksj fnyk;k ftldh Áfr vihykfFkZ;k dks Hkh vxzsf'kr dh xbZ gS] vkSj dgk fd os lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e] 2005 dh /kkjk 2 ¼,p½ ds vuqlkj yksd Ákf/kdj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrs blfy;s lwpuk nsus ds fy;s ck/; ugha gSA 3- vihykfFkZ;k us ÁR;qRrj ÁLrqr fd;k gS ftlesa ;g vafdr fd;k gS fd ÁR;FkhZ la[;k ,d iaftd`r laLFkk gS] ftls Ldwy pykus ds fy;s 'kkldh; ekU;rk gS] mu ds rhu Ldwyksa esa ls nks vU; Ldwy vuqnkfur gSa vkSj ,slh fLFkfr esa ÁR;FkhZ i{k }kjk mUgsa lwpuk ugha nsdj fof/kd +=qfV dh xbZ gSA 4- eSaus ÁR;FkhZ i{k dks lwuk rFkk i=koyh ij miyC/k leLr i=kkfn dk voyksdu fd;kA fdlh laLFkk ds ekU;rk ÁkIr gksus vFkok iaftd`r gksus ls og laLFkk yksd Ákf/kdj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa ugha vkrh gSA laLFkk ds ftu nks Ldwyksa esa vuqnku ÁkIr djus dk mYys[k gS og vuqnku lacf/kr fo~|ky; dks fey jgk gS] blfy;s os fo|ky; rks vo'; yksd Ákf/kdj.k dh ifjHkk"kk esa vk ldrs gS laLFkk ughaA ÁR;FkhZ i{k us ftl laLFkk ds lanHkZ esa lwpuk dh vis{kk dh gS] og Ldwy vihykfFkZ;k us vuqnkfur gS ,slk ugha fy[kk gSA bl n`f"V ls ÁR;FkhZ i{k us vihykfFkZ;k dks lwpuk ugha nsdj dksbZ fof/kd =qfV ugha dhA 5- ,slh fLFkfr esa orZeku vihy fujLruh; gS vkSj bls vLohdkj fd;k tkrk gSA 6- vLrq] orZeku vihy mDrkuqlkj vLohdkj dh tkrh gSA 7- vkns'k dh Áfr mHk; i{k dks Ásf"kr dh tkosA 8- fu.kZ; ?kksf"krA 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has shown this Court to Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which reads as follows:- Section 2(h) in the Right To Information Act, 2005:- "(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 Legislature; (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 or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is a Non-aided Educational Institution, and thus, not amenable to the RTI jurisdiction. 9. Learned Government Counsel Mr. Hemant Choudhary also approves the fact that the petitioner is a Non-aided Educational Institution and though the respondents have a supervisory control as prescribed in the statute, but the same also does not fall within the domain of definition of Public Authority. 10. This Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, finds that since the petitioner is a Non-aided Educational Institution, not being financed and aided by the respondent-State and is not falling in the definition of Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005. 11. In view of the above, the present writ petitions are allowed and the impugned order dated 12.10.2011 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondents no. 2- learned Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission in Appeal No. 104/2011 titled as Smt. Mardula Mehta v. Public Information officer, District Education officer Secondary, Jodhpur; the order dated 12.10.2011 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondents no. 2- learned Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission in Appeal No. 103/2011 titled as Smt. Meena Bhandari v. Public Information officer, District Education officer Secondary, Jodhpur), and order dated 15.09.2011 (Annex. 8) passed by the respondents no. 2- learned Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan Information Commission in Appeal No. 82/2011 titled as Ravi Kumar Mehta v. Public Information officer, District Education officer Secondary, Jodhpur are quashed and set aside. 12. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly.