9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (5) TMI 941X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpugned 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 (supr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... und that the said application was received on 17-3-2011. It is also the contention of the petitioner society that, as the petitioner society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and under the Bombay Public Trust Act, as per the Right to Information Act the petitioner society does not fall under the definition of public authority , and hence the petitioner society is not duty bound to supply information sought by the respondent No. 1. 6. Respondent No. 1, aggrieved by the rejection of application, preferred Appeal No. 1 of 2011 before the respondent No. 2. The petitioner society appeared and filed its written statement contending that, the petitioner society is registered under the Cooperative Societies Act and the Bombay Public Trust Act. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 has no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and therefore the appeal is not maintainable. The petitioner society contends that since the Head Master is appointed as an Information Officer, the petitioner society is not duty bound to provide the information. 7. Respondent No. 2 allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 holding that since the petitioner society is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rcular, dated 11-4-2012 issued by the Commissioner of Cooperation, Maharashtra State, Pune, the Right to Information Act is not applicable to the Societies registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Goa Cricket Association and Another v. State of Goa and Others, reported in 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 453 has held that the State Information Commission is a multi-member body and that the Commission cannot consist of only one member. The Commission must consist of State Chief Information Commissioner and at least one more State Information Commissioner. Therefore, relying upon the said judgment, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the appeal filed by the petitioner ought to have been heard by the multi-member body of the Commission. It is submitted that the judgment of this Court in the case of People Welfare Society through its President v. The State Information Commissioner, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Writ Petition No. 5168 of 2010 delivered on 29-3-2011 cannot be made applicable in the facts of the present case. It is submitted that the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rther submits that the Head Master while receiving grants of the school acts as the Chief Executive Officer of the school representing the society, though the Head Master is not appointed as the Chief Executive Officer. It is submitted that the appointment of the Head Master of the school as the Chief Executive Officer to represent the society is always for administrative convenience. 16. The counsel for the respondent no. 1 submits that the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 are squarely applicable to the petitioner society, and the order passed by the State Information Commission is perfectly legal and correct and the petition is devoid of any substance and same deserves to be rejected. The learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 invited my attention to the unreported judgment of this Court in the case of People Welfare Society (supra) and submits that the petitioner society is receiving aid from the Government, and therefore, in view of the judgment in afore mentioned case, the petitioner society is bound to supply the information to the respondent No. 1. Therefore, he submits that the petition may be rejected. 17. I have given careful consideration ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e governed. Therefore, the Right to Information Act, 2005 has been introduced with laudable object and said cannot be defeated by accepting narrow interpretation as canvassed by the petitioner. 21. This Court in the case of People Welfare Society (supra) has considered somewhat similar controversy and held that the institutions receiving grant in aid are bound by the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 22. In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted. However, I find considerable force in the argument canvassed by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that the 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. 23. 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
