Dismissed

Chhatrapati Shri Shahu Technical Institute and College Aurangabad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Bombay HC13 Jun 2016WP/4565/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay Bench at Aurangabad held that a public trust receiving no government grant and not controlled by the State is not a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act. The court applied Apex Court precedent to quash the impugned order against the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

Rule made absolute; impugned order quashed and set aside; no orders as to costs.

Chhatrapati Shri Shahu Technical… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

{1}

¶2

4565.07 wp.odt

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 4565 OF 2007 WITH WP/1304/2008

¶5

CHHATRAPATI SHRI SHAHU TECHNICAL INSTITUTE AND COLLEGE AURANGABAD VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

¶6

Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. S S Shete AGP for Respondents: Mr. S.B. Pulkundwar. Advocate for respondent No.4 : Mr. S.B. Gastgar.

¶7

CORAM : S.V. GANGAPURWALA & K.K. SONAWANE, JJ. DATE : 13TH JUNE , 2016.

¶8

PER COURT:

¶9

1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of parties. We have heard Mr. Shete, Advocate For the petitioner, Mr. Gastgar for respondent No.4 and the learned AGP for respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

¶10

2] It is not disputed that the petitioner is a public trust. According to the petitioner, Right to Information Act, is not applicable to it. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of “Thallappalam Cooperative Bank Limited and others Vs. State of Kerala and others.” (2013) 16 SCC 82. According to the petitioner, the petitioner does not qualify the test of State or Instrumentality of the State or Public Authority. It is not controlled by the State.

¶11

3] Mr. Gastagar, Advocate submits that petitioner institution is registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act and Bombay Public Trust Act. It is supervised by the authorities of the State and as such, comes within the definition of public authority.

¶12

4565.07 wp.odt

¶13

4] We have considered the submissions. Petitioner had specifically made statement in the appeal before the appellate forum that the petitioner institution does not receive any grant in aid from the Government at the relevant time. As, at the relevant time, the petitioner was not financed by the Government nor controlled by the Government, the judgment in the case of “Thallappalam Service Coop. Bank“ (cited supra) would apply. As such, as at the relevant time, the petitioner could not have come within the ambit of Right to Information Act. Hence, the impugned order is quashed and set aside. Rule made absolute accordingly with no orders as to costs.

¶14

[K.K. SONWANE] JUDGE

¶15

[S.V. GANGAPURWALA] JUDGE.

¶16

grt/-

Chhatrapati Shri Shahu Technical Institute and College Aurangabad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhatrapati Shri Shahu Technical Institute and College Aurangabad v. the State of Mah and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vaishali Nagsen Sarje Vs Nagsen Kondibarao Sarje

Gangadhar Vitthalrao Patil and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Madhavrao Sambhaji Birajdar and Others Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Balaji Amines Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Gita Asaram Indalkar Vs the State of Maharashtra and Others

Sharad Vishnu Gokhale and Anr. Vs Brijlal Zumberlal Sarda and Ors.