RANVIR SINGH Vs. CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant intra -Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dt. 22nd December, 2010 dismissing the writ application of the petitioner/appellant upholding the order dt. 28th July, 2010 passed by the Chief Information Commission, Rajasthan. Shorn off the unnecessary details, the essential material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are: That the Secretary, Shri Bhawani Niketan Shiksha Samiti, Sikar Road, Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samiti', for short) aggrieved by the order dt. 26th May, 2009 passed by the Commissioner, College Education, Rajasthan (respondent number 2), on an application preferred by the petitioner/appellant seeking certain information under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 2005'); filed an appeal before the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan (respondent number 1). The appellate authority (respondent number 1) allowed the appeal of the Samiti vide order dt. 28th July, 2010 holding that the Samiti was not a "public authority" as defined under Sec. 2(h) of the Act of 2005. The petitioner/appellant aggrieved by the order dt. 28th July, 2010 preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16874 of 2010, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned judgment and order dt. 22nd December, 2010 upholding the judgment and order dt. 28th July, 2010 passed by the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant, reiterating the contents of the pleaded facts in the writ application and in the memo of the appeal, contended that since the Samiti is governed by the provisions of the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1989', for short) and the Rajasthan Non -Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, Grand -in -Aid and Service Conditions) Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993', for short); the respondent number 2 has pervasive control over it and funds have been provided to the Samiti by the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly. The orders of the Chief Information Commissioner, Rajasthan and the learned Single Judge have been assailed on the ground that the information could not have been denied though the Samiti did not receive any government aid since it is not a condition precedent, and the Samiti is very much within the ambit of the definition of "public authority" as defined under Sec. 2(h) of the Act of 2005. Moreover, the Samiti did receive grant -in -aid from the Government of Rajasthan and also funds from the Member of Parliament and the Members of Legislative Assembly.

(3.) IN the instant case at hand, the petitioner/appellant contends that the Samiti being a "public authority" as defined under Sec. 2(h) of the Act of 2005 is within the ambit of the Act of 2005 and therefore, the petitioner/appellant is entitled to seek the information as per the details of applications and as directed by the first appellate authority vide order dt. 26th May, 2009. The learned counsel then argued that Section 2(h)(c) makes a specific provision to the effect that any authority or body or institution of self -government or constituted by any other law made by State Legislature; also included, in its ambit the respondent - Samiti, to mean "public authority".