1. Heard Sri J.J Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. By this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 12-12-2007, 4-1-2008, 11-1-2008 and 12-3-2008. The writ petition raises an important issue. The orders, which are sought to be challenged in the writ petition are the orders issued by the authorities under Right to Information Act, 2005, asking the management to provide certain information, as prayed for, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner is a Committee of Management of an intermediate college, which is recognised under U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In para-16, it is also mentioned that the institution is receiving grant-in-aid from the State of U.P Sri J.J Munir, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenging the orders contended that the institution is not covered by the definition of public authority, as provided under Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). Elaborating his submission, the learned counsel submits that the institution is a private institution run by a registered society and is providing education to the society. The institution has corpus, building and land, which are permanently owned by the institution and the mere fact that the institution is receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government by way of payment of salary to the teachers and staff, will not cover the institution under Section 2(h) of the Act since the institution is not substantially financed. In fact, the authorities under the Act have to find out in each and every case whether the institution is substantially financed or not and in the present case no inquiry having been conducted by the competent authority the orders directly issued asking the management to divulge the information cannot be sustained.
3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the institution, which is receiving grant-in-aid and covered by the provision of U.P High School and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary to Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971, is an institution, which is receiving 100% salary grant for teachers and the staff. Apart from payment of salary, the institution also receives maintenance grant from time to time e.g grant for building, games, laboratory, library. The institution, which is receiving such kind of grants, has to be treated as substantially financed.
4. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
5. The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been enacted with the object of setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. Section 2 of the Act is definition clause, which defines public authority. Section 2(h) of the Act is quoted as below:—
2. Definition. — In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—
(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government 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) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
6. The petitioner, which is run by Committee of Management constituted by a Society, is a non-Government organisation, which can come within the definition of S. 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act, as noticed above. The institution has been granted recognition under U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921, and is run by Committee of Management in accordance with the scheme of administration framed under Section 16A of the Act. The management and functioning of the institution is fully regulated by the provisions of U.P Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulation framed therein, provisions of Act, 1971. The institution is engaged in providing education to the society. For appointment of teachers, the courses to be taught in the institution and all other affairs are fully covered by the statutory provisions. The institution is receiving grant-in-aid for payment of salary to the entire teaching staff, non-teaching staff and Class-IV employees. Apart from payment of salary, the institution also receives maintenance grant from time to time from the Government. The words used In Section 2(h)(d) of the Act, which are to be considered are “substantially financed”. It is also relevant to note that the words “substantially financed” has further been clarified by two more words directly or indirectly by funds provided by the Government. The object of the Act was even to cover those institutions, which even indirectly receives funds from the Government. Present is the case where the institution is receiving funds directly from the Government for payment of salary and for maintenance. The words “substantially financed” clearly indicates that the institution has not to be 100% financed by the State. The word “substantial” has been used only to indicate that even if the entire finance and expenditure of the institution is not borne by the Government still the institution will be covered by the definition of the public authority, as noticed above. The object of the Act is to secure access to information under the control of public authorities. The institution, which is being run in accordance with the statutory provisions and receiving finance by the State Government substantially is duty-bound to divulge the information, as sought, in accordance with the provisions of the right to Information Act, 2005. In case, the argument is accepted that merely because it has its building, land and property, which is corpus of the institution, it will go out of definition of Section 2(h) of the Act and the entire purpose of the Act 2005 shall be defeated.
7. In view of the foregoing submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the institution is fully covered by the definition of the “public authority” under Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act.
8. It being substantially financed by the State Government, it was obligatory on the part of the institution to provide the information, as asked for, under the Act, 2005. None of the submissions of the petitioner can be accepted.
9. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
10. Learned standing counsel is directed to furnish copy of this order to the Director, Secondary Education, who shall circulate to all the District Inspector of Schools throughout the State.
11. Petition dismissed.