The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P. (C) No. 6689 of 2016 St. Joseph’s College, Situated at Torpa, P.O. & P.S.-Torpa, Dist.- Khunti, through its Principal namely, Emmanuel Bage, son of Sri Daniel Bage, resident of Torpa, P.O. & P.S.-Torpa, Dist.-Khunti (Jharkhand) .... Petitioner Versus 1. Jharkhand State Information Commission, through Chief Information Commissioner, National Informatics Centre Jharkhand State Centre, 2nd Floor, Engg. Hostel-2, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, Dist.-Ranchi-834004 2. Prof. Akshay Kumar Rai, father’s name not known to the petitioner, resident of Village-Shantinagar, P.O. & P.S.-Torpa, Dist.-Khunti-835227, (Jharkhand) 3. The State of Jharkhand …. Respondents P R E S E N T For the Petitioners For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY ….. : Mr. Sumeet Gadodia, Advocate : Mrs. Shilpi Sandil Gadodia, Advocate : Mr. Prakhar Harit, Advocate : Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, Advocate : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate : Mr. Aman Shekhar, AC to GA I : Mr. Mrinal Kanti Roy, GA I : Mr. Vishal Kr. Rai, Advocate By the Court:- 1. 2. ….. Heard the parties. This Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to issue of appropriate writ(s), W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 1 order(s), direction(s) to quash the order dated 30.09.2016 passed in Appeal Case No.334 of 2016 contained in Memo No.23354 dated 07.10.2016 by the Jharkhand State Information Commission whereby and where under, Jharkhand State Information Commission has directed the petitioner to furnish details and communicate the information asked from the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005 by the respondent no.2. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is neither a ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2 (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 nor the information sought by the respondent no.1 was required to be furnished by the petitioner in view of Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005. A declaration was also sought to the effect that the petitioner-college is not liable to furnish any information as asked by the respondent no.1 vide the said order dated 30.09.2016. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner-college was established under the aegis and control of Khunti Catholic Diocese which is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and the respondent no.2 was a professor of that college who sought certain information vide his application dated 14.09.2015 from the writ petitioner. As the information was not provided, the respondent no.2 approached the respondent no.1 vide Appeal Case No.334 of 2016. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the information sought by the respondent no.2 falls under the W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 2 category “exempted information” as provided for under Section 8 of Right to Information Act. Hence, the petitioner was not obligated to furnish the details asked for by the respondent no.2 and the petitioner college is neither controlled nor substantially financed by the funds provided by the appropriate government. Relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Kerela & Ors. reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82, wherein, the question before the Hon’ble Supreme Court was that whether the cooperative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act; which is under the control of registrar of cooperative society, would be falling within the definition public authority under Section 2 (h) of Right to Information Act, 2005 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India answered the question by holding that cooperative societies registered under the Kerela Cooperative Societies Act will not fall within the definition of public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of R.T.I. Act in the absence of material to show that they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate government and it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that though the petitioner college received grant in aid by the state government for payment of salary to its employees but it is only a scanty fraction of the amount which is spent by the petitioner college for making payment of salary to its teachers or making other expenses of the college. It is next submitted by the W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 3 learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited & Ors. vs. State of Kerela & Ors. (supra) has also held that the burden to demonstrate that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed by the funds provided by the appropriate government is upon the applicant. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the fundamental right of the petitioner college under Articles 29 and 30 of Constitution of India which recognizes the right of the minority to protest its right and interest and to establish and administer its educational institutions is infringed and violated by the respondent no.2 by seeking information from the petitioner which pertains to day to day affairs of the petitioner educational institution. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as made in this writ petition be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand opposes
Decision
the prayer made by the writ petitioner. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of DAV College Trust And Management Society & Ors. vs. Director of Public Instructions & Ors. reported in (2019) 9 SCC 185, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in that case, has held that the expression ‘substantially financed’ has been interpreted as whether the body, authority or NGO in carrying out its activity effectively without getting the finance from the government and W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 4 its functioning is dependent on the finance of the government. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petitioner college in question falls within Section 2 (h) (i) of Right to Information Act; hence, it is liable to furnish information sought by the respondent no.2. Drawing attention of this Court to paragraph no.12 of the counter affidavit, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.2 that the petitioner college has inter alia received the following grant in aid under Jharkhand State Unaided Educational Institution (Grant) Rule, 2004:- Sessions Amount (in Rupees) 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 3,15,685 7,77,778 10,80,000 10,80,000 14,40,000 14,40,000 40,00,000 and submits that the said grants are substantial in amount since the functioning of the college is largely dependent on the finances of the State Government. 6. It is next submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the college is in need of the said fund for running its affairs smoothly. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the information sought by the respondent no.2 W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 5 does not fall under the exempted category under Section 8 of R.T.I. Act, 2005. Hence, it is submitted that this writ petition being without any merit be dismissed. 7. Having heard the submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials in the record, this Court found that the writ petitioner has nowhere mentioned the total budget of the writ petitioner college but keeping in view the undisputed fact of receiving grant in aid as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs of the judgment, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the grant in aid amount of Rs.40,00,000/- in the year 2015-16 of government money is a substantial payment. It is pertinent to mention here, that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of DAV College Trust And Management Society & Ors. vs. Director of Public Instructions & Ors. (Supra), has in no uncertain manner, has held that substantially financed does not mean finance is more than 50% of deposit of institution. When the amount is more if the finance is less 50%, still such finance can be termed as substantial finance. Hence, this Court do not find any merit in the contention of the writ petitioner that the writ petitioner is not a public authority within Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act rather since it is substantially financed both directly and indirectly by the fund provided by the appropriate government; hence, the writ petitioner college can be termed as a public authority within the meaning of Section 2 (h) (i)of Right to Information Act, 2005; being an institution substantially financed by the government. W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 6 8. So far as the contention of the writ petitioner that the information sought by the respondent no.2 falls under the category of exempted information is concerned, after carefully going through the materials in the record, this Court finds that there is no material to suggest that the disclosure of the information sought by the respondent no.2 will prejudicially affect the sovereignty and integrity of India nor the information sought is expressly forbidden nor the disclosure of the information sought to cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature nor the information sought is any information of commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party and keeping in view the information sought is copy of the audit report, utility service, the minutes of the meeting of the governing body, the annual grant in aid received by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the information sought do not come under the exempted category as provided for under Section 8 of Right to Information Act, 2005, hence, this Court do not find any merit in this contention of the petitioner as well. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this Court do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the order dated 30.09.2016 passed in Appeal Case No.334 of 2016 contained in Memo No.23354 dated 07.10.2016 by the respondent no.1. W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 7 10. Accordingly, this writ petition being without any merit is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 2nd May, 2024 AFR/Sonu-Gunjan/- W.P. (C) No.6689 of 2016 8