The Manager vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 17895 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                               PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
   WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943
                       WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020
PETITIONER:

          THE MANAGER
          CHAKKALAKKAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MADAVOOR,
          PADANILAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673571.

          BY ADVS.
          P.NANDAKUMAR
          SRI.S.ANEESH



RESPONDENTS:

    1     STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO
          GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
          SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

    2     THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER,
          THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673573.

    3     THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA,PUNNEN ROAD,
          THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS
          SECRETARY.

    4     T.M.NOUFAL,THAMANNA MAHAL, ARAMBRAM, PADANILAM P.O.,
          KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571.

          BY ADVS.
          SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION
          SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN
          SRI.T.M.KHALID
          SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA
          SR. G.P SRI.BIMAL K NATH




     THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020
                                 2



                            JUDGMENT

The petitioner is the manager of an aided

school. Whether the petitioner will fall within the

definition of a 'public authority' under the Right

to Information Act, 2005,(for short 'the Act'), is

the question urged in the writ petition.

2. As per Ext P9 order, the 3 rd respondent held

that the petitioner will not fall within the purview

of the Act. But it was held that, the 2 nd respondent,

who is the first appellate authority, could have

called for the relevant details from the petitioner

under the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.

3. Sri. M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel for

the 3rd respondent points out that, the Apex Court in

D.A.V College Trust And Management Society and

Others Vs. Director of Public Instructions and

Others ((2019) 9 SCC 185) and a Division Bench of

this Court in W.A No.1990 of 2007 held that, if WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

substantial financing, either direct or indirect, is

done by the State Government to the aided

institutions, the institution would be bound by the

provisions of the Act. In those cases the subjects

were aided colleges.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner points

out that the 2nd respondent is not an Appellate

Authority though observed to be so by the 3 rd

respondent. It is further pointed out that there was

no original application before the 2 nd respondent,

enabling the 3rd respondent to have passed orders in

the nature of Ext P9 as against the 2 nd respondent.

5. It would be sufficient if the 3 rd respondent

considers the issue afresh and passes appropriate

orders after hearing the petitioner as well as the

4th respondent.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

Ext.P9 order of the 3rd respondent is quashed. The 3 rd

respondent shall pass fresh orders after hearing the

petitioner and the 4th respondent, as expeditiously WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

as possible. It is made clear that all the

contentions of the rival parties are left open.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN JUDGE vdv WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17509/2020

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.

EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 3.1.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 2.5.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.