Petitioner society deemed 'public authority' under RTI Act due to State grants for education

The court held that the petitioner society is a "public authority" under the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it receives grants from the State Government for educational purposes. The court emphasized that the distinction between the society and the schools receiving grants would defeat the purpose of the Act. The court set aside the State Information Commission's order and directed a multi-member bench to hear the appeal in accordance with the Goa Cricket Association case. The appellate authority was instructed to decide the appeal independently within two months.

---

---

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.

---