The Maharashtra High Court, Nagpur Bench, dismissed an appeal challenging a single judge's order that a public trust is not a public authority under the Right to Information Act, holding the definition in Section 4 is exhaustive.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
L.P.A. NO.287 OF 2009.
IN
W.P.NO.5294 OF 2009 (D)
PRAVIN S/O ACHYUTRAO MAHAJAN
V
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, VIDARBHA REGION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS.
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram
appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders
and Registrar's orders.
Mr. A. Parchure, Advocate for the appellant.
CORAM: B.P.DHARMADHIKARI AND
F.M.REIS, JJ
Dated: 28th July, 2009.
1.Heard.
2.The challenge is to judgment dated
28-4-2009 delivered by the learned Single
Judge, allowing the Writ Petition and holding
that the public Trust is not a public authority
under Section 4 of Right to Information Act.
3.By placing reliance upon the Judgment
of apex Court reported in AIR 1976 SC page 888
the learned Counsel for the appellant has tried
to contend that how concept of public authority
or statutory authority has been understood
judicially is apparent from said judgment. He
argues that the said analogy is squarely
applicable to the public Trust and hence,
public Trust must be held to be public
authority.
3.We are unable to accept this argument
2
based upon the analogy because for the purpose
of Right to Information Act, the public
authority has been denied and that definition
is exhaustive. As such, there is no scope of
going to any other provision for its
interpretation. It is apparent that a public
trust is not a separate or distinct legal
entity, and therefore, not an authority or body
or institution as envisaged in opening part of
such definition of Section 4. Learned Single
Judge, therefore, rightly found in para 8 of
impugned judgment that the public trust does
not fall in any of the categories i.e.
categories (a) to (d) of said Section 4.
4.We, therefore, do not find any merit
in the Letters Patent Appeal. Letters Patent
Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
JUDGE
/Muley/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a public trust constitutes a public authority under Section 4 of the Right to Information Act.
Whether the definition of public authority in the Right to Information Act is exhaustive and precludes reliance on other legal provisions.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
AIR 1976 SC page 888Referred¶2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
PRAVIN S/O ACHYUTRAO MAHAJAN
STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, VIDARBHA REGION, NAGPUR AND OTHERS
B.P.DHARMADHIKARI
F.M.REIS
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court