2014 (5) TMI 941 - HC - Indian Laws

Right to Information - Denial of providing information - Held that - schools run by the petitioner society are receiving grant in aid from the State Government. The distinction which is tried to be made by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is the Chairman of the Shahada Taluka Cooperative Education Society and the information sought is in respect of affairs of the society and not about the school which are receiving grant in aid directly in the account of the Head Master, and therefore, the petitioner is not obliged to give information sought for. It clearly appears that Shahada Taluka Cooperative Education Society is established for imparting education. The sole purpose of forming such society is for establishing school and imparting education. Therefore, the distinction which is tried to be made by the petitioner, as aforementioned, needs no consideration. Though the Information Officer is appointed, the petitioner, when called upon to furnish the information, it bound to supply the same to the respondent No. 1. By way of impugned order only direction is issued to the petitioner to furnish the information as sought by the respondent No. 1 within fifteen days. Acceptance of the interpretation of the arguments of the petitioner that information sought is in respect of affairs of the society and not in respect of the school receiving grant in aid, would defeat the object of introducing the Right to Information Act, 2005 - Act provides for setting out the practical regime of Right to Information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the Constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. The Constitution of India has established democratic Republic and democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. - Decided against the petitioner. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Goa Cricket Association (supra) held that the State Information Commission is a multi-member body and commission must consist of State Information Commissioner and at least one more State Information Commissioner, and therefore, any appeal or application is required to be considered by the multi-member body. - In that view of the matter, the impugned order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Bench at Nashik deserves to be quashed and set aside, as the decision given on 27-11-2012 in the appeal is only by one member - matter remanded back to the appellate authority to hear the parties and decide the appeal on its own merits without being influenced by any observations made in this order or in the impugned order of the appellate Court.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Definition of "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
2. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the appeal.
3. Applicability of the Right to Information Act to the petitioner society.
4. Composition of the State Information Commission.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Definition of "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005:
The petitioner society contended that it does not fall under the definition of "public authority" as per Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The society argued that it is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and the Bombay Public Trust Act, and it is not a state or state instrumentality. The society also emphasized that it does not receive direct government aid, and the aid is received by the schools and colleges run by the society, which is deposited directly into the accounts of the Head Master and Chairman.

2. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the appeal:
The petitioner society argued that the appellate authority/Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Shahada, District Nandurbar, and the State Information Commission, Nashik, had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. The society contended that since the Head Master is appointed as an Information Officer, the society is not duty-bound to provide the information.

3. Applicability of the Right to Information Act to the petitioner society:
The respondent No. 1 submitted that the petitioner society is a public trust and imparts education since 1952. The society receives salary and non-salary grants from the State Government, and the appointments of teachers are approved by the Education Officer of the State Government. The respondent argued that the petitioner society is under the control of the State Government and falls under the definition of "public authority" as per Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. Composition of the State Information Commission:
The petitioner society relied on the judgment in the case of Goa Cricket Association and Another v. State of Goa and Others, which held that the State Information Commission must consist of the State Chief Information Commissioner and at least one more State Information Commissioner. The petitioner argued that the appeal should have been heard by a multi-member body of the Commission.

Judgment:
The court held that the schools run by the petitioner society receive grants in aid from the State Government, and the sole purpose of forming the society is to establish schools and impart education. Therefore, the society falls under the definition of "public authority" as per Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The court rejected the petitioner's distinction between the society and the schools receiving grants, stating that such an interpretation would defeat the object of the Act.

The court found considerable force in the argument that the State Information Commission is a multi-member body and that any appeal or application should be considered by such a body. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the State Information Commissioner, Bench at Nashik, was quashed and set aside. The court restored Appeal No. 669 of 2011 to its original file and directed the State Information Commission, Bench at Nashik, to hear the appeal after constituting a multi-member bench in light of the judgment in the case of Goa Cricket Association.

The court made it clear that any observations made in its order or the impugned order would not influence the appellate authority while considering the appeal afresh. The appellate authority was directed to hear the parties and decide the appeal on its own merits within two months.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the petitioner society is a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and is obligated to provide the requested information. However, the appeal must be heard by a multi-member body of the State Information Commission, as per the judgment in the case of Goa Cricket Association. The impugned order was quashed, and the appeal was restored for fresh consideration by a properly constituted bench.