Agricultural Produce Market Committee vs Director of Agricultural Marketing and Rural Finance and Others

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

As these petitions involve common question of law, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

By way of these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed to quash and set aside the Government Resolution dated 26.04.2006 published by the Director of Agricultural Marketing & Rural Finance, respondent No. 1 herein, directing to appoint Information Officers, as provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, �the RTI Act�) and also the orders, at Annexures - W, C & D respectively to the petitions, passed by the Gujarat Information Commission, respondent No. 2 herein, directing the petitioners to provide information, as sought for by the original applicant.

The petitioners herein are Agricultural Produce Market Committees constituted under the provisions of the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963 (for short, �the GAPM Act�). Respondent No. 4, original applicants, submitted individual applications before the concerned District Registrar seeking certain informations under the RTI Act.

2.1 In the meanwhile, on 26.04.2006, respondent No. 1-authority published a Government Resolution directing all the Agricultural Produce Market Committees to appoint Information Officers, as provided under the provisions of the RTI Act.

2.2 On the ground of non-supply of information as sought for from the Office of the District Registrar, the original applicants preferred complaints before the Gujarat Information Commission, respondent No. 2 herein. The State Chief Information Commissioner allowed the complaints filed by the original applicants and directed to provide the information as sought for.

2.3 Being aggrieved by the Government Resolution dated 26.04.2006 and the orders passed by respondent No. 2-authority, the petitioners have preferred the present petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It is the case of the petitioners that the "Agricultural Produce Market Committee" is not a body formed by the State Legislature by any statute but, is a body incorporated under a statute, viz. the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. Therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act would not apply to it. Hence, the impugned Government Resolution and the orders passed by respondent No. 2-authority deserve to be quashed and set aside.

Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the documents on record. It is not in dispute that the "Agricultural Produce Market Committee" is a body incorporated under the Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963. The respondent-authorities have passed the impugned orders on the premise that the �Agricultural Produce Market Committee� is a ''public authority'' u/s 2(h) of the RTI Act.

Looking to the facts of the case, a reference to Section 2(h) of the RTI Act would be apposite;

2(h). "Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;

Having gone through the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 2-authority, I find that the authority has not dealt with the issue as to whether the �Agricultural Produce Market Committee� is amenable to the provisions of the RTI Act or not on the basis of the definition contained in Section 2(h) and more particularly, Clause (d) therein of the RTI Act.

Hence, I am of the opinion that it would be appropriate that respondent No. 2-authority decides the issue as to whether the petitioners - Agricultural Produce Market Committees would fall within the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act or not, after giving proper opportunity to the petitioners to defend their case by producing on record necessary documentary evidence.

Consequently, the Government Resolution dated 26.04.2006 passed by respondent No. 1-authority as also the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 2-authority, at Annexures - W, C & D respectively to the petitions, are quashed and set aside. The matters are remanded to respondent No. 2-authority for decision on the issue as to whether the petitioners - Agricultural Produce Market Committees are covered under the provisions of the RTI Act or not.

It is clarified that this Court has passed the aforesaid order, without entering into the merits of the case and therefore, respondent No. 2-authority shall decide the issue on merits, without being influenced by the fact that this Court has quashed its earlier order.

With the above observations, the petitions stand disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the above extent in each of the petitions.