Bombay High Court
Sindhi Hindi Shikshan Vidya ... vs The State Information ... on 22 February, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 936wp6516.19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 6516 OF 2019
Sindhi Hindu Shikshan Vidya Samiti and ors__ Vs. ___The State Information
Commissioner and ors
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Nikhil Valesha, Advocate h/f Mr. Anand Parchure, Advocate for petitioners
Ms. T.Khan, AGP for respondent No. 1
Mr. Sheikh Majid, Advocate for Respondent No.2
Mr. G.G.Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No.3
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 22/02/2023
1] Heard Mr. Nikhil Valesha, learned
counsel holding for Mr. Anand Parchure, learned
counsel for the petitioners.
2] The petition challenges the order dated
30.03.2019 passed by the respondent no.1 (second
appellate authority) (pg. 30) directing to supply the
information.
3] Mr. Valesha, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the petitioners do not fall
within the definition of "public authority" as defined
in section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. He
further places reliance upon the provisions of
Section 8(1)(g) & (j) of the said Act to contend that
(2) 936wp6516.19
the information ought not to have been directed to
be supplied. He also relies upon the circular dated
17.10.2014 (pg. 44) issued by the State and the
order of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) No.
27734/2012 (Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vrs
Central Information Commissioner and ors), decided
on 3.10.2012.
4] At the outset, it would be necessary to
note that the circular dated 17.10.2014 issued by the
State relates to clause 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act and the
judgment in Girish Deshpande (supra) is under
Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. The information
solicited as is apparent from the application at
page 17, dated 28.8.2018 is the approval granted to
the post of principal of the school run by petitioner
No.1 by the Deputy Director of Education. The other
information which is sought is the seniority list for
the year 2017-18.
5] It is not in dispute that the school run by
the petitioner no.1 is 100% grant-in-aid school, as a
result of which the provisions of Section 2(h)(ii)
would come into picture and therefore, it would fall
within the definition of "public authority" as defined
therein. The information sough is in the public
(3) 936wp6516.19
domain and is also available with the Education
Officer, Nagpur, considering which the said
information cannot be considered to fall in Section
8(1)(g) or (j) of the Act of 2005, in view of which
neither the Govt. Circular dated 7.10.2014, which
relates to Section 8(1)(g), nor the judgment in
Girish R Deshpande (supra) which is on the scope
and interpretation of clause 8(1)(e), (g) & (j) of the
RTI Act assist the petitioners. Though Canara Bank
vrs. C.S. Shyam and another, (2018) 11 SCC 426,
has been relied upon, that is a case under Section
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act and as indicated above, the
information sought is within the public domain. That
being the position, I am not inclined to interfere in
the impugned order. The petition is dismissed. No
costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:23.02.2023 15:39
