Renuka Shikshan Prasarak Mandl v. The State Of Mah And ANR

(1) W. P. No. 3006 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,

AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD.

Writ Petition No. 3006 of 2009 District : Ahmednagar Renuka Shikshan Prasarak Mandal, At & Post : Nagapur, Taluka & District : Ahmednagar, through Shri Rajendra Ramrao Chavan.

.. Petitioner.

versus

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through the Chief Secretary, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 32.

2. Vilas Sakharam Sathe, Age : Major, Occupation : Service, Residing at Mhasoba Gate, Vidya Colony, Nagar-Kalyan Road, Ahmednagar.

.. Respondents.

.........................

Mr. S.T. Shelke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. S.S. Raut, Asst. Government Pleader, for respondent no.1.

Mr. N.B. Suryawanshi, Advocate, for respondent no.2. ..........................

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & A.M. BADAR, JJ.

DATE : 11TH FEBRUARY 2016 COURT'S ORDER (Per S.V. Gangapurwala, J.) :

1.

Mr. Shelke, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits

(2) W. P. No. 3006 of 2009 that the petitioner - Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and Bombay Public Trusts Act 1950. The said Society is not controlled by the Government nor is substantially financed by the Government. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, respondent no.2 is time and again asking for information in respect of various activities of the petitioner - Society. 2.

Mr. Suryawanshi, the learned Counsel for respondent no.2, submits that the institutions run by the petitioner are receiving grant in aid. As such, the petitioner is liable to give the said information. 3.

If the institutions run by the petitioner are receiving grant in aid and are substantially financed by the Government, such institutions would be liable to the provisions of the Right to Information Act 2005. However, petitioner - Society is not receiving any grant nor is controlled by the State or its authorities.

4.

In the light of the above, respondent no.2 would not be entitled to receive information from the petitioner under the Right to Information Act 2005.

5.

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. ( A.M. BADAR ) ( S.V. GANGAPURWALA ) JUDGE JUDGE ................................

puranik / WP3006.09