Bombay High Court
Mahatma Gandhi Mission Throuhg ... vs Nagraj Chandba Gaikwad on 1 March, 2016
Bench: S.V. Gangapurwala
{1}
6778.07 wp.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 6778 OF 2007
1] Mahatma Gandhi Mission,
through its Secretary,
N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad.
2] Mahatma Gandhi Mission's
College of Education,
through its Principal,
N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad. ... Petitioners
Versus
Nagraj s/o Chandba Gaikwad,
Age : 35 years, Occu : Social Service,
R/o New Pahadsing Pura,
Aurangabad Caves Road,
Aurangabad. ...Respondent
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. V. D. Salunke.
Advocate for Respondent Sole : Mr. S. S. Thombre.
...
CORAM : S. V. GANGAPURWALA &
A. M. BADAR, JJ.
DATE : 1st March, 2016.
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per S. V. Gangapurwala, J.) :-
1] The judgment and order passed by the State Information
Commission is assailed in the present writ petition. The respondent sought
certain information from the petitioner institution. The application, it
appears, is made to the petitioner No.2. The said information is not
supplied. An appeal is filed before the State Information Commissioner by
the respondent. Same is allowed.
{2}
6778.07 wp.odt
2] Mr. Thombre, learned counsel for the respondent submits that
the State Information Commissioner has rightly passed order as the
petitioners have failed to provide the necessary information. The State
Information Commissioner has directed the petitioners to provide the
necessary information. Petitioners are required to provide the same as per
Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
3] According to petitioners, the petitioner No.2 is not substantially
financed or supervised by the State. As such, Section 2(h) of the Act, would
not apply. It has been held by the Apex Court in the case of "Thalappalam
Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and Ors. Vs. State of Kerala and Ors." reported in
2014(1) ALL M.R. 451, that the Cooperative Society in the said case was not
substantially financed by the State. It further held that the degree of finance
must be actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not
moderate, ordinary, tolerable etc. The control should also be of a
substantive nature and not mere supervision or regulation.
4] The Division Bench of this Court in a case of Agriculture
Produce Market Committee V/s Meghraj Pundlikrao Dongre and Others
reported in 2011 (5) Bom. C. R. 128, in para 14 had observed as under:-
"We, thus, hold that the appellant/ Market
Committee is established and constituted as
an institution of self Government and is a
local Authority and by law made by the State
Legislature. Consequently, the provisions of
the RTI Act do apply to the appellant / APMC.
Before parting with the judgment, looking to
the increase in number of scams in the
Cooperative Credit Societies, Urban and Other
Cooperative banks due to frauds played by the
persons within the Society or the bank
causing severe losses to the poor depositors
and since the money of the depositors is
involved in such societies / banks, it would
be far better to cover all the Cooperative
Credit Societies / banks etc. under the RTI
Act. We recommend accordingly to the Central
{3}
6778.07 wp.odt
Government. In the result, we find no merit
in the present appeal. Hence, the L. P. A. is
dismissed."
This also shows that, the Division Bench of this Court had held
that, the Cooperative Societies/Banks do not come within the ambit of Right
to Information Act, 2005 and recommendation was made to the Central
Government to take steps to bring it within the ambit of Right to Information
Act, 2005.
5] Nothing is brought on record that the petitioner No.2 is
financed by the Government or is substantially controlled by the State
Government. In view of that, the impugned order is quashed and set aside.
Rule made absolute in above terms. No costs.
[A.M. BADAR] [S.V. GANGAPURWALA]
JUDGE JUDGE
grt/-
