Allowed

The Manager v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC1 Sept 2021WP(C)/17509/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges an order declaring the petitioner an aided school and not a public authority under the RTI Act. The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the order and directing the State Information Commission to pass fresh orders after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

WP allowed; Impugned order of 3rd respondent quashed; Fresh orders directed to be passed after hearing parties.

The Manager Vs State of Kerala — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 10TH BHADRA, 1943

¶5

WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

¶6

PETITIONER:

¶7

THE MANAGER CHAKKALAKKAL HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, MADAVOOR, PADANILAM P.O., KOZHIKODE-673571. BY ADVS. P.NANDAKUMAR SRI.S.ANEESH

¶8

RESPONDENTS:

¶9

1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶10

2 THE DISTRICT EDUCATIONAL OFFICER, THAMARASSERY, KOZHIKODE-673573. 3 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA,PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 4 T.M.NOUFAL,THAMANNA MAHAL, ARAMBRAM, PADANILAM P.O., KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571. BY ADVS. SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION SRI.VINOD SINGH CHERIYAN SRI.T.M.KHALID SMT.K.P.SUSMITHA SR. G.P SRI.BIMAL K NATH

¶11

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.09.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

¶13

¶14

JUDGMENT

¶15

The petitioner is the manager of an aided

¶16

school. Whether the petitioner will fall within the definition of a 'public authority' under the Right to Information Act, 2005,(for short 'the Act'), is the question urged in the writ petition.

¶17

As per Ext P9 order, the 3^rd respondent held

¶18

that the petitioner will not fall within the purview of the Act. But it was held that, the 2^nd respondent, who is the first appellate authority, could have called for the relevant details from the petitioner under the provisions of the Kerala Education Rules.

¶19

Sri. M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel for the 3^rd respondent points out that, the Apex Court in

¶20

D.A.V College Trust And Management Society and Others Vs. Director of Public Instructions and Others ((2019) 9 SCC 185) and a Division Bench of

¶21

this Court in W.A No.1990 of 2007 held that, if

¶22

¶23

WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

¶24

substantial financing, either direct or indirect, is done by the State Government to the aided institutions, the institution would be bound by the provisions of the Act. In those cases the subjects were aided colleges.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner points out that the 2^nd respondent is not an Appellate Authority though observed to be so by the 3^rd respondent. It is further pointed out that there was no original application before the 2^nd respondent, enabling the 3^rd respondent to have passed orders in the nature of Ext P9 as against the 2^nd respondent.

¶26

It would be sufficient if the 3^rd respondent considers the issue afresh and passes appropriate orders after hearing the petitioner as well as the 4^th respondent.

¶27

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Ext.P9 order of the 3^rd respondent is quashed. The 3^rd respondent shall pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner and the 4^th respondent, as expeditiously

¶28

WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

¶29

¶30

as possible. It is made clear that all the contentions of the rival parties are left open.

Sd/-

SATHISH NINAN

JUDGE

vdv

WP(C) NO. 17509 OF 2020

¶36

¶37

APPENDIX OF WP(C) 17509/2020

¶38

PETITIONER EXHIBITS

¶39

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 25.11.2015 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF LETTER ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF PETITION DATED 3.1.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.2.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF LETTER DATED 1.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 26.3.2016 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF APPEAL PETITION DATED 2.5.2016 SUBMITTED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 5.5.2020 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 16.7.2020 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

The Manager v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Manager v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Palakkad Co-Operative Marketing Society Limited NO.F.1078 Vs State of Kerala

Nishin V.P. Vs the State of Kerala

The Ernakulam District Co-Operative Bank Vs State of Kerala

Jayarajan V.V Vs the Registrar of Cooperative Societies

Abdul Gafoor K.K. Vs the Secretary

Sibi K.George Vs the Secretary