AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Vandana, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Notice on behalf of Respondent No. 1 has been accepted by Mr. Vipul Sharma, Advocate, who is being represented by Mr. B.C. Joshi, Advocate.
The short contention of the Petitioner is that he was only a President of "Upbhokta Pey Jal and Swachchhata Samiti", which he held being a "Gram Pradhan". Certain informations were sought from him under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which he denied as according to him, he was not a "Public Authority" within the meaning of the Right to Information Act. The matter went to the First Appeal and since Respondent No. 3 was again denied information at first appeal stage as well, he moved a second appeal u/s 19(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Notices were issued to the Public Authority, First Appellate Authority as well as to the Information seeker i.e. present Respondent No. 3. In its order, the Second Appellate Authority prima facie came to the conclusion that the information has wrongly been withheld from the information seeker and hence show cause notices were issued to the Petitioner and Respondent No. 2 to show as to why a penalty of ` 25,000/- be not imposed upon them for creating hindrance in supplying the information. On the next date, the Information Officer and the First Appellate Authority placed their submissions before the Information Commissioner. It appears that the Public Information Officer stated that the records are not being given by the present Petitioner to them i.e. the Public Authority and as such on instructions of the higher authorities, an FIR, to this effect, has also been ordered to be lodged against the Petitioner. The Information Commissioner on these set of facts has merely directed the authorities to comply with these directions and has fixed the date of 2.3.2011. The Petitioner has challenged the orders of the State Information Commissioner dated 10.12.2010 and 3.3.2011, which are interim in nature.
Mr. V.K. Kohli, Senior Advocate has vehemently urged that the Petitioner is not a Public Authority and therefore, it is not amenable to jurisdiction under the Right to Information Act. With this argument of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, this Court is prima facie not in agreement. Public Authority has been defined u/s 2(h) of the Act, which reads as follows:
Definition.-In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,--
(a) ......
(b) .....
(c) .....
(d) .....
(e) .....
(f) .....
(g) ....
(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 include any-
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
It is clear that the information was being sought from "Upbhokta Pey Jal and Swachchhata Samiti" about certain projects and how much money has been spent on the projects. A "Gram Pradhan", who is elected under a State Legislation and who is the Chairman of the "Samiti" is definitely a Public Authority. However, this Court is not expressing any final opinion on this aspect. No interference as an interim measure is called for.
Notices may go to Respondent Nos. 2 to 3 within a period of three weeks. Steps to be taken within one week from today.
List after service of notice.