Dear Group
The WP was of the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court. The Court is speaking exactly like IC A N Tiwari. If there is a pre-existing legal way to access information use that instead of RTI Act :-)
ICs like Shailesh Gandhi (who publicly disagree with IC Tiwari) should really read such decisions (and RTI act) before proceeding to pass petulant orders which are challenged (and stayed) at public expense.
"IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.5294 OF 2008.
PETITIONER: Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni,
aged about 69 years, Occu" Legal
Practitioner, Chief Trustee, Shree Govind
Ramanand Samarth Sadguru Pralhad Maharaj
(Ramdasi) Sansthan, Sakharkherda,
Distt.Buldhana, R/o Ambad,
Distt.Jalna.
-VERSUS -
RESPONDENTS: 1. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur
(Vidarbha Region), Nagpur.
2. Assistant Charity Commissioner,
Buldhana and First Appellate Authority
under Right of Information Act.
3. Pravin Achyutrao Mahajan,
aged Major, r/o 181, Bazar Road, Gokulpeth,
Nagpur – 10.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Mr.R.L.Khapre, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.N.W.Sambre, Government Pleader for respondent no.1 and 2.
Mr.Dhumale, Advocate for respondent no.3.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Coram: C.L.PANGARKAR,J.
Dated : 28th APRIL, 2009.
ORAL JUDGMENT:
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally
with consent of the parties.
2. This writ petition is preferred by the Trust against the
order passed by the State Information Commissioner as well as the
Information Officer.
3. A few facts may be stated as follows -
Respondent no.3 claims to be a disciple of Sadguru
Pralhad Maharaj. There is a trust known as Shree Govind
Ramnand Samarth Sadguru Pralhad Maharaj (Ramdasi) Sansthan.
The petitioner is the Chief Trustee of the said trust. Respondent
no.3 made an application to the said trust to supply certain
information to him under the Right to Information Act. The
petitioner trustee informed to respondent no.3 that information
being confidential cannot be supplied. Respondent no.3, therefore,
preferred an appeal to the Information Officer i.e. the Charity
Commissioner. The Charity Commissioner ordered upon payment
of fees the information to be supplied. The petitioner, therefore,
preferred second appeal to the State Information Commissioner at
Nagpur. The State Information Commissioner rejected the appeal.
Hence this writ petition.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
the respondents.
5. It is not necessary to go into the question as to what
information was sought from the trust at all. The only contention
of the petitioner is that Right to Information Act itself is not
applicable to it and both authorities fell in error in directing the
information to be supplied. The State Commissioner has refused
to entertain this plea on the ground that it was not raised before
the first appellate authority. The question related to the legality
of the order passed by the first appellate authority as well as the
jurisdiction of the first appellate authority to take cognizance of
the appeal. It should have, therefore, dealt with the contention.
Be that as it may.
6. We have therefore now to consider the question if a
public trust registered under the Public Trust Act and Societies Act
is governed by the Right to Information Act. A public trust to my
mind cannot certainly be said to be falling within meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It is neither a local authority or other authority of India or an authority under the control of Government. It is not disputed that the present public trust is not provided any sort of grant by the Government. The only exception would, however, be the trust created by the Government and
financed by the Government. A Public Trust has been defined in
Section 2 of sub-Section 13 of the Bombay Public Trust Act as
follows -
"Public Trust" means an express or
constructive trust for either religious or
charitable purpose or both and includes a
temple, a math, [church, synagogue, agiary or
other place of public religious worship] [a
dharmada or any other religious or charitable
endowment and a society formed either for a
religious or charitable purpose or for both and
registered under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (XXI of 1860).
7. A trust is thus established for religious and charitable
purpose. It is created upon dedication of certain property by
certain persons for certain purpose, such as religious or charitable.
The question as to whether the public trust is or is not governed
by the Right to Information Act has to be decided on the basis of
the provisions of the Right to Information Act. It would be
necessary to look into certain provisions of the Act. Section 4 of
the Right to Information Act casts a duty on every public authority
to maintain the record in such a manner to facilitate the supply of
information. Section 5 speaks of appointment of Information
Officer while Section 6 speaks of making an application to the
Information Officer. Section 7 deals with the disposal of such
request. It is clear from Section 4 that Act applies to the public
authorities. The definition of public authority as given in the Act
reads as follows.
"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. A bare reading of definition would make it clear that
public trust does not fall in either of the categories. It is not
established or constituted under the Constitution of India, by law
passed by the parliament, by any law of the State Legislature or
by Notification issued by any appropriate Government. It is also
not a body substantively financed or controlled by the
Government nor is it a NGO financed by the Government nor does
the trust receive any contribution or grant from the Government.
It is not the contention of the State that the State provides any
funds to the petitioner trust. It is, therefore, clear from the
provisions of this definition that the Act cannot apply to the Public
Trust. Any public trust, therefore, is not at all covered by the
definition of the public authority. It is only the public authority
which is bound by the provisions of the Act. Any person seeking
to establish that a particular public trust is covered by the
provisions of the Right to Information Act will have to first prove
that a it is a public trust created by Government or Parliament or
is substantively financed by the government. Until that is done, it
must be held to be falling outside the scope of the Right to
Information Act. If any person interested in the information of the
trust, he can definitely apply to the Charity Commissioner under
the provisions of the Public Trust Act to have such information,
which the Charity Commissioner may deem fit to be provided. But
as far as Right to Information Act is concerned, there is no need
for any public trust to appoint any Information Officer and to
entertain any such application under the Right to Information Act.
In the circumstances, the petition has to be allowed. Order passed
by both the authorities are set aside and quashed. Petition is
allowed. Rule is made absolute.
JUDGE.
--- In rti_india@yahoogroups.com, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Bhaskar your information seems to be incorrect.
>
> Only 1 SIC decision for Nasik is uploaded on SIC website
> http://sic.maharashtra.gov.in/files/upload/nashik/ANSARI%20EJAJ%20AHMED-19-06-2009.pdf
>
> The ratio of which is as follows (quoting WP(C) 5294/2008):
>
> ""If any person interested in the information of the trust, he can
> definitely apply to the Charity Commissioner under the provisions of
> the Public Trust Act. to have such information, which the Charity
> Commissioner may deem fit to be provided. But as far as Right to
> Information Act is concerned, there is no need for any public trust to
> appoint any Information Officer and to entertain any such application
> under the Right to Information Act. In the circumstances, the petition
> has to be allowed. Order passed by both the authorities are set aside
> and
> quashed. Petition is allowed. Rule is made absolute"
>
> And yet your guruji IC(SG) seems to be blissfully unaware of all this
> in Maharashtra when he repeatedly passes orders in case of the Trust
> managing Bombay properties of Indian Institute of Science to disclose
> information and appoint PIOs. This decision has also been stayed by
> Mumbai High Court.
>
> Sarbajit
>
> On 8/16/10, Bhaskar Prabhu <mahitiadhikarmanch@...> wrote:
> > Dear friends,
> >
> > I had sent the detail of disposals in earlier mail for Jan to May 2010 below
> > satement to be corrected from 18189 to 8077 average per month by commission
> > is to corrected from 1515 to 1615 and average per commissioner per month of
> > commission is to be corrected from 216 to 230.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Inservice for RTI
> > Bhaskar Prabhu
> > Mumbai
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Total actual disposal of appeals and complaints for Jan to May 2010 by the
> >> commission is 18189 average per month byn commission is 1515 and per
> >> average
> >> per commissioner of the commission is 216.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Total appeals returned by commission due to technical for Jan to May 2010
> >> reasons 1377.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
No comments:
Post a Comment