PRAVARA MEDICAL TRUST Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner No.1 Pravara Medical Trust is registered under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is also registered as society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on 28.12.1972. Petitioner No.2 Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 10.07.2001 and is also registered as a Trust on 16.12.2003. It is also admitted that petitioner no.2, by virtue of notification issued by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India on 29.09.2003, in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, has been declared to be a deemed university. Petitioner no.2 operates Medical College, Dental College, Nursing College and other Health related educational institutions.

(2.) Petitioners are taking exception to the direction issued by the University Grants Commission to tender information, as requested by Respondent No.3 in his application dated 05.12.2008. The University Grants Commission has informed that all the deemed universities are covered by Right to Information Act and copy of the communication sent to the deemed universities along with copy of Central Information Commission's letter has been forwarded to petitioner no.2. The Central Information Commissioner (CIC) has informed the University Grants Commission that the deemed universities are "public authorities" under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and are bound to observe provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.

(3.) It is the contention of petitioners that petitioner no.1 is a separate and independent trust and is not receiving any Government aid, whereas, petitioner no.2 also operates educational institutions on no grant basis. Petitioner no.2 does not receive any financial aid from the State or Central Government and is not a body owned, controlled or substantially financed by the "appropriate Government" nor a body financed directly or indirectly out of the funds provided by the "appropriate Government" and as such, does not come within the definition of public authority. It is the contention of petitioners that they are not bound to furnish information as requested by Respondent No.3. It is further contended that Respondent No.3 is a dismissed employee of petitioner no.2 and application tendered by him, seeking information, is with mala fide intention and does not call for any consideration.