[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
The Appellate Authority And Chairman ... vs The State Information Commissioner And ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: G. S. Kulkarni
Bench: G. S. Kulkarni
2026:BHC-AS:3120-DB
Digitally
13-LPA-48-2013 (C).DOC
signed by
PRASHANT
PRASHANT VILAS
VILAS RANE
RANE Date:
2026.01.22
13:17:29
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 48 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 26 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 58 OF 2013
The Appellate Authority And Chairman
Shikshan Prasarak Mandali & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
The State Information Commissioner & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 52 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 30 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 62 OF 2013
The Appellate Authority And Chairman
Shikshan Prasarak Mandali ...Appellants
Versus
The State Information Commissioner & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 51 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 29 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 61 OF 2013
The Appellate Authority And Chairman
Shikshan Prasarak Mandali & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
The State Information Commissioner & Anr. ...Respondents
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 28 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 60 OF 2013
The Appellate Authority And Chairman
Shikshan Prasarak Mandali & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
The State Information Commissioner ...Respondents
Page 1 of 6
16 January 2026
PVR
::: Uploaded on - 22/01/2026 ::: Downloaded on - 23/01/2026 22:07:30 :::
13-LPA-48-2013 (C).DOC
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 49 OF 2013
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 27 OF 2011
WITH
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 59 OF 2013
The Appellate Authority And Chairman
Shikshan Prasarak Mandali & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
The State Information Commissioner & Anr. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Aumkar Joshi for Appellants.
Mr. O. A. Chandurkar, Addl. GP a/w Ms. Reena Salunkhe, AGP for State.
Mr. Prathamesh Bhargude i/b Mr. Sugandh Deshmukh for Respondent No.2.
__________
CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.
DATE: 16 JANUARY 2026
P.C.
1. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against a common judgment and
order dated 18 October 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby a batch
of writ petitions filed by the appellants came to be dismissed. By the impugned
order, the learned Single Judge has held that the Right to Information Act, 2005
(for short, "the RTI Act") is applicable to the appellants/petitioners and that the
appellants/petitioners were required to provide information in relation to its
educational institutions, as also held by the Competent Authority under the RTI
Act.
2. It was appellant's case that it is a public trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act, 1950 and not a public authority within the meaning of Section
2(h) of the RTI Act, and that its educational institutions were established,
managed and administered by its trust. The Appellants also contended that, at the
16 January 2026
PVR
13-LPA-48-2013 (C).DOC
most, it is an institution merely receiving aid from the Government and,
therefore, did not fall within the definition of the term "public authority", as
receiving aid would not alter its legal character of ceasing thereby to be a public
charitable trust managing and administering an educational institution. However,
such contentions of the appellants, considering the position of law, as it existed at
the relevant time was not accepted by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the
petition(s) filed by the appellants.
3. At the outset, we are informed by the learned counsel for the parties that a
similar issue, which had arisen before the learned Single Judge and the subject
matter of the present appeal(s), fell for consideration of the Full Bench of this
Court before the Nagpur Bench, in the case of People Welfare Society v. State
Information Commissioner & Ors. 1 The question before the Full Bench in the
said case was as under:
"Question: Whether a public trust registered under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, 1950, which is running an
institution that receives grant from the State is duty-bound to supply
information sought from it under provisions of the Right to
Information Act, 2005 ?"
4. The Full Bench, on a survey of the legal position and significantly also
referring to the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single
Judge, observed in paragraph 32 that it was not persuaded to accept the view as
taken by the learned Single Judge. The Full Bench held that the view that a public
trust, which runs an educational institutions, and the educational institutions
1 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 716
16 January 2026
PVR
13-LPA-48-2013 (C).DOC
themselves are one and the same for the purposes of the RTI Act, would not be
the correct legal position. The observations in that regard, which are required to
be noted, read thus:
"32. Shikshan Prasarak Mandali Case takes a contrary view by holding
that a trust would also be covered in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, on the
premise that there is an element of public dealing while administering a
trust and the same cannot be distinguished by holding that such public
dealing is only in respect of the educational institutions run by the public
trust and not in respect of the trust. Though there is an element of public
dealing while administering a public trust, the same, would relate to the
fulfillment of the aims and objects of the trust and not otherwise. As
pointed out above a public trust cannot be said to be a body owned or
controlled by the State, and so also the question of substantial finance, also
has to be looked into in light of the policy of the State and the extent of
finance. Though it cannot also be denied that while running and
administering such educational institution, the "public trust", doing so, does
exercise control over the activities of the educational institution, however, it
is also to be noted that the educational institution, owes its existence to the
"public trust"/society/body, which created it and not otherwise. Even in
absence of any educational institution, a "public trust"/society can and does
function, and can in certain cases, even run educational institutions, even
without any State aid, in the form of salary and non-salary grants.
Therefore, to hold that a "public trust", which runs an educational
institution and the educational institution are one and the same for the
purposes of the RTI Act, would not be a correct position, in our considered
opinion. LPA No.48 of 2013 decided on 20-3-2013 against Shikshan
Prasarak Mandali Case has only been admitted."
(emphasis supplied)
5. However, it is imperative to note that the Full Bench recorded its
conclusions in paragraph 35, in answering the question posed for its
consideration. Learned Counsel for the parties would submit that legal position
which governs an RTI application which may be filed against a trust managing an
educational institution, is as to what is held by the Full Bench in paragraph 35 of
the said judgment. The Full Bench held thus:-
"35. In light of the above discussion, the question is therefore
answered as under:
16 January 2026
PVR
13-LPA-48-2013 (C).DOC
Whether a public trust registered If the information solicited under the
under the provisions of the RTI Act, is regarding the public trust,
Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, then there is no obligation to supply
1950, which is running an the information, if such public trust,
institution that receives grant from does not fall within clause (I) of
the State in duty-bound to supply Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and has
information sought from it under not received any substantial
provisions of the Right to government largesse or land on
Information Act, 2005? concession, to implement the aims
and objects of the said public trust.
In case the information solicited is in
respect of the educational or other
institutions run by the public trust,
then depending on the extent of
financial support given by the State,
in case such finance, is found to be
substantial, which is a plea to be
decided by the Information
Commissioner, information relating
to such educational or other
institutions can be directed to be
supplied.
The Charity Commissioner, would
also not be legally obliged to supply
such information, which may be
collected by him, in respect of the
public trust, under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Public Trusts Act, in
case such information falls under the
exempted category mentioned in
Section 8(j) of the Act and the
demand does not have statutory
backing.
In case the information solicited does
not fall in the exempted category
under Section 8 of the RTI Act, then
information as submitted to the
authorities under the provisions of
the Maharashtra Public Act, under its
various provisions by the public trust,
can be supplied by the authority who
has the custody of such information.
6. Thus, the law as declared by the Full Bench continues to operate, there
16 January 2026
PVR
13-LPA-48-2013 (C).DOC
being no acceptable reason such as interference by the Supreme Court in such
decision and/or any legislative intervention to bring a different position otherwise
than what is held by the Full Bench.
7. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that further adjudication
of these appeals is not called for, as any RTI application that is filed would now be
governed by the clear directions issued by the Full Bench in paragraph 35 (supra).
The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge needs to
be read accordingly.
8. The Letters Patent Appeals are, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid
terms. No order as to costs.
9. The pending civil applications do not survive and stand disposed of.
(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)
16 January 2026
PVR
