Sunday 26 July 2015

Whether deemed university is public authority as per RTI Act?

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

No comments:

Post a Comment