RTI >> Judgments >> High Court >> Public Authority
| S.No. | HIGH COURT CASE | DATE OF JUDGMENT | JUDGMENT |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 |
W.P. (C) 5567/2013 HIGH COURT OF DELHI (163.13 KB) 
|
04 Sep, 2013 | Army Welfare Housing Organisation Vs. Adjutant Generals Branch & Ors. Section 2(h) – Public Authority –whether the Army Welfare Housing Organization is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act? – the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of CIC where in the Full Bench of the Commission has held that the Army Welfare Housing Organization is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. |
| 17 |
C.W.P. 8794/2011-J HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADEH (218.49 KB)
|
06 Mar, 2013 | Ved Prakash Vs. State Information Commission, Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Gram Panchayat – the Hon’ble High Court of Himachal Pradesh held that respondent no.3 and 4 have not supplied the information within the period prescribed under section 7 of the Act and have knowingly given incorrect and misleading information. The respondent no.4, in addition to this, has also destroyed the information and has also obstructed the supply of information to the petitioner. It was the duty of respondent No.4 to supply the information as per sub-section (5) of section 5 of the Act, but he has failed to do so. the respondent no.1 besides imposing penalty upon respondent No.3 and 4, ought to have awarded compensation to the petitioner. A penalty of Rs. 10,000/- each is imposed upon respondent no.3 for supplying knowingly incorrect information and respondent no.4 for knowingly giving incorrect and misleading information, destruction of information and obstructing the information. The petitioner is also held entitled to compensation of Rs.50,000/- for the loss and detriment suffered by him to be paid proportionately by respondents No.3 and 4. |
| 18 |
CWP No. 1509 of 2013 HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA (108.29 KB)
|
01 Mar, 2013 | Chandigarh University Vs. State of Punjab & Ors. Section 2(h) – public Authority – Whether the petitioner – Chandigarh University is a “Public Authority” within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act? – the State Information Commission, Punjab has held that it is a public authority The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana held that admittedly, the petitioner-University is a body established by law made by the State Legislature. Clearly, the petitioner would be covered under the scope and ambit of the definition of “Public Authority” under section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act. Once it is shown that a body has been constituted by an enactment of the State Legislature, then nothing more need be shown to demonstrate that such a body is a “Public Authority” within the meaning of section 2(h)(c) of the RTI Act. No infirmity in the impugned order passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab holding the petitioner-University to be falling within the meaning of “Public Authority” under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. |
| 19 |
WP No. 3650 of 2012 HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (318.07 KB)
|
08 Jan, 2013 | Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors. Section 2(h)- Public Authority- Section 2(f)- Information- The petitioner claimed that the school run by the Trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authorities have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- The appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it to respondent No. 5, an ex-employee of the petitioners- the petitioners contended that what could not have been done directly is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal rights of the petitioners are violated. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 to respondent No. 2 to use any of those powers for procuring information from the petitioners cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner has not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order is passed without hearing the petitioners. |
| 20 |
W.P No. 3650 of 2012 (318.06 KB)
|
08 Jan, 2013 | Kausa Education & Charitable Trust & Otrs. V.S. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors. Section 2(h) Public Authority The petitioner claimed that the school run by the trust is private unaided one and, therefore, it is not public authority under the RTI Act- the authority have answered this issue in its favour and its concurrent findings have not been questioned by the respondent who sought information- the appellate authority, however, directed Education Officer (Secondary) to gather the information from the petitioners and to supply it respondent No 5, an ex-employee is sought to be achieved indirectly, thereby the powers or jurisdiction under the RTI Act are being exceeded & legal right of the petitioner are violated – The Hon’ble Bombay High Court held that a direction by respondent No. 1 in its order dated 10th February 2012 cannot be viewed as excessive. The contention that what is directly prohibited has been achieved indirectly through such a direction or course of action is, misconceived and unsustainable. However, the petitioner have not been given necessary opportunity of hearing before passing of impugned order. The impugned order passed without hearing the petitioners is unsustainable. |
| 21 |
Writ Petition No. 345 of 2006 (161.76 KB)
|
10 Dec, 2012 | Principal, Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa Vs. State of Goa & Ors. Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Nirmala Institute of Education, Goa, a Non-Government aided college affiliated to the Goa University When the information was sought from the petitioner, it was not covered under the RTI Act – Later on the State Government notified and brought several non-Government aided colleges affiliated to the Goa University including Goa University under the purview of the RTI Act The Hon’ble High Court quashed the order passed by the respondent No.2 on the ground that Nirmala Institute of Education was not coved under the Act and, as such, respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal purportedly filed u/s 19(3) of the RTI Act as such the respondent no. 2 had no jurisdiction to pass any order. |
| 22 |
Writ Petition No. 26 of 2011 along with Writ Petition Nos. 27, 28, 29, 30 of 2011 (254.44 KB)
|
18 Oct, 2012 | Shikshan Prasarak Mandali Vs. Maharashtra State Information Commission & Ors Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Whether the petition Trust is a public authority under the RTI Act? – Shikshan Prasarak Mandali The Hon’ble High Court of Bombay held that the funds of the petitioners comprise of and consist of examination fees, other educational income, Government Grants. The constitution of the Trust envisages expending these amounts for fulfilling the objects of the Trust. Even if the grants are admissible to the Educational Institutions, the power to utilise them is vested in the Managing Committee of the Trust. The account of the Institutions and the Trust are consolidated and even the audit is single. In these circumstances, there is no reason to differ with the conclusion of the second appellant authority. The finding and conclusion that the RTI Act is applicable to the petitioners and they are obliged to provide information in relation to its educational institutions is confirmed. |
| 23 |
LPA No. 606 of 2010 LPA No. 607 of 2010 (206.97 KB)
|
12 Sep, 2012 | Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh Matharu AND Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee & Ors. Vs. Jathedar Kuldip Singh Bhogal Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Whether the Delhi Sikh Gurudwara Management Committee, is a ‘Public authority’ within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that the appellant is a ‘Public authority’ as it is constituted by the Act of the Parliament. Undeniably, the appellant is a statutory body under Delhi Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1971 (DSG Act). It is constituted under section 3 of the DSG Act. It is not a body made under any law, but a body made by the aforesaid law. The learned Single Judge has rightly pointed out that there is a distinction between the use of the words “by any law made by Parliament” and “by or under the Constitution”. The Parliament has consciously not used the words “by or under” in sub-clause (b) of section 2(h). In other words, once the body is established or constituted by the law made by Parliament, it would be a ‘Public authority’ under section 2(h)(b) of the RTI Act. |
| 24 |
W.P. (C) : 2380/2010 & C.M. No. 4767 / 2010 (for stay) AND W.P. (c) : 2381 / 2010 & C.M. No. 4770 / 2010 (for stay) (295.46 KB)
|
06 Jul, 2012 | Delhi Integrated Multi Model Transit System Ltd. Vs. Rakesh Aggarwal AND Delhi Integrated Multi Model Transit System Ltd. Vs. Sachin Sapra Section 2(h) — Public Authority — The respondent sought certain information from the petitioner — in reply to the said application, the petitioner company claimed that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of "Public Authority' in terms of section 2(h) of the RTI Act — the CIC directed the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the respondent and sought an explanation from the petitioner for not supplying the information within the mandated time — the petitioner has assailed the order of the CIC whereby the CIC has held the Petitioner Company to be a "Public Authority*' under the RTI 2005 The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that there is no infirmity with the decision of the CIC holding the petitioner company to be a "Public Authority' under the Act. |
| 25 |
W.A. No. 1688 of 2009 (88.58 KB)
|
10 Apr, 2012 | Mulloor Rural Co-operative Society Ltd., Trivandrum Vs. State of Kerala & Ors. Section 2(h) – Public Authority – Whether the Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Act 1969 is the Public Authority or no The learned single judge of Kerala High Court held that a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (KCS Act) answers the definition of “Public Authority” as defined under section 2(h) of the RTI Act and hence the Registrar of Co-operative Societies was within his powers in issuing the order impugned in the Writ Petition directing all societies to constitute authorities under the RTI Act for furnishing information sought about societies the Full Bench of Kerala High Court upheld the decision of the Single Judge. |
| 26 |
W.P. (C) 4748 OF 2007 (430.48 KB)
|
15 Apr, 2010 | NATIONAL STOCK EXCHANGE OF INDIA LIMITED Petitioner Vs CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION and OTHER Respondents Declared NSE as Public Auhtority |