In view of above, argument advanced by learned
Counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.2 cannot be included
within the ambit of “public authority' as provided under Section
2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is not acceptable and is
devoid of substance.
14 So far as status of petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is
contended that petitioner no.1 is a Trust and is not receiving any
grantinaid or substantial finance from the State and as such, is
not the “public authority”. The order impugned in this petition is
directed against petitioner no.2, which, according to petitioners, is
an independent entity, i.e. Trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act and a society, registered under the Societies
Registration Act and further has been declared as a deemed
university under the notification issued by the Central
Government. Since the direction is issued against petitioner no.2
alone, the contentions raised by petitioners in respect of petitioner
no.1, need not be answered. We do not propose to deal with the
argument advanced concerning status of petitioner no.1 as the
question really does not fall for our consideration in the instant
petition, since the direction is issued only as against petitioner
no.2. The challenge raised in the petition, as such, falls.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2009
Pravara Medical Trust
at Loni,
Versus
The Union of India,
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
V.K.JADHAV, JJ.
Pronounced on : 10th October, 201
citation; AIR 2015(NOC) 880 Bom
1 Petitioner No.1 Pravara Medical Trust is registered
under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is also
registered as society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on
28.12.1972. Petitioner No.2 Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences is
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 10.07.2001
and is also registered as a Trust on 16.12.2003. It is also admitted
that petitioner no.2, by virtue of notification issued by the Joint
Secretary to the Government of India on 29.09.2003, in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, has been declared to be a deemed
university. Petitioner no.2 operates Medical College, Dental
College, Nursing College and other Health related educational
institutions.
2 Petitioners are taking exception to the direction issued
by the University Grants Commission to tender information, as
requested by Respondent No.3 in his application dated 05.12.2008.
The University Grants Commission has informed that all the
deemed universities are covered by Right to Information Act and
copy of the communication sent to the deemed universities along
with copy of Central Information Commission's letter has been
forwarded to petitioner no.2. The Central Information
Commissioner (CIC) has informed the University Grants
Commission that the deemed universities are “public authorities”
under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act,
2005 and are bound to observe provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005.
3 It is the contention of petitioners that petitioner no.1
is a separate and independent trust and is not receiving any
Government aid, whereas, petitioner no.2 also operates educational
institutions on no grant basis. Petitioner no.2 does not receive any
financial aid from the State or Central Government and is not a
body owned, controlled or substantially financed by the
“appropriate Government” nor a body financed directly or indirectly
out of the funds provided by the “appropriate Government” and as
such, does not come within the definition of public authority. It is
the contention of petitioners that they are not bound to furnish
information as requested by Respondent No.3. It is further
contended that Respondent No.3 is a dismissed employee of
petitioner no.2 and application tendered by him, seeking
information, is with mala fide intention and does not call for any
consideration.
4 Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
provides for definition of “public authority”, which reads thus:
2 Definitions: In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,
(h) “public authority” means any authority or body
or institution of selfgovernment 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) nonGovernment organisation substantially
financed, directly or indirectly by funds
provided by the appropriate Government;
“Appropriate Government” is defined under Section 2(a)
of the Act, which reads thus:
2 Definitions: In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,
(a) “appropriate Government” means in relation
to a public authority which is established,
constituted, owned, controlled or substantially
financed by funds provided directly or indirectly
(i) by the Central Government or the Union
territory administration, the Central Government;
(ii) by the State Government, the State
Government;
5 The communication issued by the University Grants
Commission dated 18.12.2008, impugned in this petition, is
directed against petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.1 is not at all called
upon to furnish any information. According to petitioners,
petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are separate entities. The
question, as such, falls for determination, in the instant petition,
as to whether petitioner no.2, which is a deemed university,
answers the parameters laid down under Section 2(h) of the Right
to Information Act to bring it within the fold of “public authority”.
6 It cannot be disputed that petitioner no.2 has been
established by a notification issued or order made by “appropriate
Government”. The notification declaring petitioner no.2 as deemed
university has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resources Development, in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
and on the advice of University Grants Commission. Thus,
petitioner no.2 is established under a notification issued by the
“appropriate Government”.
7 Section 2(a) of the Right to Information Act defines
“appropriate Government” in relation to “public authority”, which
is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially
financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central
Government or the Union territory administration, the Central
Government. In the instant matter, it has not been disputed that
petitioner no.2 has been established under a notification issued by
the Central Government and as such, the Central Government falls
within the definition of “appropriate Government” under Section
2(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
8 Petitioners contend that the institution for its
categorisation as “public authority” shall satisfy the test provided
under clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (d) of Section 2(h) of the Act,
namely, (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; or (ii)
nonGovernment organisation substantially financed, directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. It is
contended that petitioner no.2 is not controlled or substantially
financed either directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the
Government and as such, does not come within the purview of
“public authority”. It is contended that petitioner no.2 operates
educational institutions on no grant basis and does not accept any
Government aid.
9 The argument advanced by petitioners is not
acceptable for the reason that Section 2(h)(d) provides that if the
public authority established or constituted by notification issued
by the appropriate Government, that itself is good enough and
clause (d) of Section 2(h) also includes (i) body owned, controlled
or substantially financed; and (ii) nonGovernment organisation
substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by
the appropriate Government. If the authority or body or an
institution of selfGovernment is established or constituted by a
notification issued by the appropriate Government, it is not
necessary that in order to include such institution, body or
authority within the definition of “public authority”, the same
must receive finance from the appropriate Government or shall be
owned, controlled by the appropriate Government. The definition
of “public authority” falling under Section 2(h)(d) is inclusive of
body owned, controlled or substantially financed or nonGovernment
organisation substantially financed directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
10 The word “includes” when used, enlarges the meaning
of expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as
they signify according to their natural import, but also those
things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall
include.
11 “Includes” is very generally used in Interpretation
Clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases
occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, these
words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only
such things as they signify according to their natural import but
also, those things which the Interpretation clause declares that
they shall include. (AIR 1954 Bombay 205).'
12 When the word “includes” is used in the definition, the
legislature does not intend to restrict the definition, it makes the
definition enumerative and not exhaustive, that is to say, the term
defined would retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be
extended to bring within the term certain matters which in its
ordinary meaning, it may or may not comprise. (2007) 11 SCC
796.
13 In view of above, argument advanced by learned
Counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.2 cannot be included
within the ambit of “public authority' as provided under Section
2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is not acceptable and is
devoid of substance.
14 So far as status of petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is
contended that petitioner no.1 is a Trust and is not receiving any
grantinaid or substantial finance from the State and as such, is
not the “public authority”. The order impugned in this petition is
directed against petitioner no.2, which, according to petitioners, is
an independent entity, i.e. Trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act and a society, registered under the Societies
Registration Act and further has been declared as a deemed
university under the notification issued by the Central
Government. Since the direction is issued against petitioner no.2
alone, the contentions raised by petitioners in respect of petitioner
no.1, need not be answered. We do not propose to deal with the
argument advanced concerning status of petitioner no.1 as the
question really does not fall for our consideration in the instant
petition, since the direction is issued only as against petitioner
no.2. The challenge raised in the petition, as such, falls.
15 It would be obligatory on the part of petitioner no.2 to
dispose of the request made by Respondent No.3 for tendering
information in accordance with provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005.
16 Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
There shall be no order as to costs.
17 Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioners,
seeks protection for further period of four weeks.
However, for the reasons recorded in the order, we do
not deem it appropriate to extend the protection further. Prayer
stands rejected.
V.K.JADHAV R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
Print Page
Counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.2 cannot be included
within the ambit of “public authority' as provided under Section
2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is not acceptable and is
devoid of substance.
14 So far as status of petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is
contended that petitioner no.1 is a Trust and is not receiving any
grantinaid or substantial finance from the State and as such, is
not the “public authority”. The order impugned in this petition is
directed against petitioner no.2, which, according to petitioners, is
an independent entity, i.e. Trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act and a society, registered under the Societies
Registration Act and further has been declared as a deemed
university under the notification issued by the Central
Government. Since the direction is issued against petitioner no.2
alone, the contentions raised by petitioners in respect of petitioner
no.1, need not be answered. We do not propose to deal with the
argument advanced concerning status of petitioner no.1 as the
question really does not fall for our consideration in the instant
petition, since the direction is issued only as against petitioner
no.2. The challenge raised in the petition, as such, falls.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.590 OF 2009
Pravara Medical Trust
at Loni,
Versus
The Union of India,
CORAM : R.M.BORDE &
V.K.JADHAV, JJ.
Pronounced on : 10th October, 201
citation; AIR 2015(NOC) 880 Bom
1 Petitioner No.1 Pravara Medical Trust is registered
under the provisions of Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 and is also
registered as society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, on
28.12.1972. Petitioner No.2 Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences is
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 10.07.2001
and is also registered as a Trust on 16.12.2003. It is also admitted
that petitioner no.2, by virtue of notification issued by the Joint
Secretary to the Government of India on 29.09.2003, in exercise of
powers conferred under Section 3 of the University Grants
Commission Act, 1956, has been declared to be a deemed
university. Petitioner no.2 operates Medical College, Dental
College, Nursing College and other Health related educational
institutions.
2 Petitioners are taking exception to the direction issued
by the University Grants Commission to tender information, as
requested by Respondent No.3 in his application dated 05.12.2008.
The University Grants Commission has informed that all the
deemed universities are covered by Right to Information Act and
copy of the communication sent to the deemed universities along
with copy of Central Information Commission's letter has been
forwarded to petitioner no.2. The Central Information
Commissioner (CIC) has informed the University Grants
Commission that the deemed universities are “public authorities”
under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act,
2005 and are bound to observe provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005.
3 It is the contention of petitioners that petitioner no.1
is a separate and independent trust and is not receiving any
Government aid, whereas, petitioner no.2 also operates educational
institutions on no grant basis. Petitioner no.2 does not receive any
financial aid from the State or Central Government and is not a
body owned, controlled or substantially financed by the
“appropriate Government” nor a body financed directly or indirectly
out of the funds provided by the “appropriate Government” and as
such, does not come within the definition of public authority. It is
the contention of petitioners that they are not bound to furnish
information as requested by Respondent No.3. It is further
contended that Respondent No.3 is a dismissed employee of
petitioner no.2 and application tendered by him, seeking
information, is with mala fide intention and does not call for any
consideration.
4 Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005,
provides for definition of “public authority”, which reads thus:
2 Definitions: In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,
(h) “public authority” means any authority or body
or institution of selfgovernment 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) nonGovernment organisation substantially
financed, directly or indirectly by funds
provided by the appropriate Government;
“Appropriate Government” is defined under Section 2(a)
of the Act, which reads thus:
2 Definitions: In this Act, unless the context
otherwise requires,
(a) “appropriate Government” means in relation
to a public authority which is established,
constituted, owned, controlled or substantially
financed by funds provided directly or indirectly
(i) by the Central Government or the Union
territory administration, the Central Government;
(ii) by the State Government, the State
Government;
5 The communication issued by the University Grants
Commission dated 18.12.2008, impugned in this petition, is
directed against petitioner no.2. Petitioner no.1 is not at all called
upon to furnish any information. According to petitioners,
petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 are separate entities. The
question, as such, falls for determination, in the instant petition,
as to whether petitioner no.2, which is a deemed university,
answers the parameters laid down under Section 2(h) of the Right
to Information Act to bring it within the fold of “public authority”.
6 It cannot be disputed that petitioner no.2 has been
established by a notification issued or order made by “appropriate
Government”. The notification declaring petitioner no.2 as deemed
university has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of
Human Resources Development, in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956
and on the advice of University Grants Commission. Thus,
petitioner no.2 is established under a notification issued by the
“appropriate Government”.
7 Section 2(a) of the Right to Information Act defines
“appropriate Government” in relation to “public authority”, which
is established, constituted, owned, controlled or substantially
financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the Central
Government or the Union territory administration, the Central
Government. In the instant matter, it has not been disputed that
petitioner no.2 has been established under a notification issued by
the Central Government and as such, the Central Government falls
within the definition of “appropriate Government” under Section
2(a) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
8 Petitioners contend that the institution for its
categorisation as “public authority” shall satisfy the test provided
under clauses (i) and (ii) of clause (d) of Section 2(h) of the Act,
namely, (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; or (ii)
nonGovernment organisation substantially financed, directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. It is
contended that petitioner no.2 is not controlled or substantially
financed either directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the
Government and as such, does not come within the purview of
“public authority”. It is contended that petitioner no.2 operates
educational institutions on no grant basis and does not accept any
Government aid.
9 The argument advanced by petitioners is not
acceptable for the reason that Section 2(h)(d) provides that if the
public authority established or constituted by notification issued
by the appropriate Government, that itself is good enough and
clause (d) of Section 2(h) also includes (i) body owned, controlled
or substantially financed; and (ii) nonGovernment organisation
substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by
the appropriate Government. If the authority or body or an
institution of selfGovernment is established or constituted by a
notification issued by the appropriate Government, it is not
necessary that in order to include such institution, body or
authority within the definition of “public authority”, the same
must receive finance from the appropriate Government or shall be
owned, controlled by the appropriate Government. The definition
of “public authority” falling under Section 2(h)(d) is inclusive of
body owned, controlled or substantially financed or nonGovernment
organisation substantially financed directly or
indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
10 The word “includes” when used, enlarges the meaning
of expression defined so as to comprehend not only such things as
they signify according to their natural import, but also those
things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall
include.
11 “Includes” is very generally used in Interpretation
Clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of words or phrases
occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used, these
words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only
such things as they signify according to their natural import but
also, those things which the Interpretation clause declares that
they shall include. (AIR 1954 Bombay 205).'
12 When the word “includes” is used in the definition, the
legislature does not intend to restrict the definition, it makes the
definition enumerative and not exhaustive, that is to say, the term
defined would retain its ordinary meaning but its scope would be
extended to bring within the term certain matters which in its
ordinary meaning, it may or may not comprise. (2007) 11 SCC
796.
13 In view of above, argument advanced by learned
Counsel for petitioners that petitioner no.2 cannot be included
within the ambit of “public authority' as provided under Section
2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, is not acceptable and is
devoid of substance.
14 So far as status of petitioner no.1 is concerned, it is
contended that petitioner no.1 is a Trust and is not receiving any
grantinaid or substantial finance from the State and as such, is
not the “public authority”. The order impugned in this petition is
directed against petitioner no.2, which, according to petitioners, is
an independent entity, i.e. Trust registered under the Bombay
Public Trusts Act and a society, registered under the Societies
Registration Act and further has been declared as a deemed
university under the notification issued by the Central
Government. Since the direction is issued against petitioner no.2
alone, the contentions raised by petitioners in respect of petitioner
no.1, need not be answered. We do not propose to deal with the
argument advanced concerning status of petitioner no.1 as the
question really does not fall for our consideration in the instant
petition, since the direction is issued only as against petitioner
no.2. The challenge raised in the petition, as such, falls.
15 It would be obligatory on the part of petitioner no.2 to
dispose of the request made by Respondent No.3 for tendering
information in accordance with provisions of Right to Information
Act, 2005.
16 Writ Petition stands dismissed. Rule discharged.
There shall be no order as to costs.
17 Learned Senior Counsel, appearing for petitioners,
seeks protection for further period of four weeks.
However, for the reasons recorded in the order, we do
not deem it appropriate to extend the protection further. Prayer
stands rejected.
V.K.JADHAV R.M.BORDE
JUDGE JUDGE
No comments:
Post a Comment