DAV College Trust and Managing Society & Anr. v. Director of Public Instructions (Schools) U.T. Administration & Ors.
Case at a glance
- Bench
- JASBIR SINGH
Provisions considered
Judgment
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Rajdeep Singh Cheema, Advocate for the petitioners ….. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) CM No.11421 of 2009 Application allowed, documents are taken on record. CWP No.7495 of 2009 This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners to lay challenge to order dated 18.3.2009 (P1), directing the petitioners to provide requisite information to the applicant under the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005(in short the Act). As is apparent from the affidavit now filed, the petitioners have already provided the information to the applicant/ respondent No.3 as demanded by him. It is contention of counsel for the petitioners that Hari Ram Hostel, regarding which information was sought, is not an aided institute and in view of that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to direct the petitioners to provide hostel information under the Act. Civil Writ Petition No.7495 of 2009 2 After hearing counsel for the petitioners, this Court feels that the argument raised is fallacious and is liable to be rejected. It is not in dispute that the School is receiving financial aid from the Union Territory, Chandigarh. It is also not in dispute that the hostel is situated on the land, which was allotted to the School as an educational institute. In that hostel, students studying in the school, are accommodated. By taking note of above said facts, the authority below has rightly said that the hostel is a part of the school, as such, the petitioners are under an obligation to provide information demanded by respondent No.3. Private aided institution has been held to be covered under the definition of ‘public authority’ by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Principal M.D.Sanathan Dharam Girls College Ambala City and another v. State Information Commissioner, Haryana and another (CWP No.453 of 2008), decided on 14.1.2008. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed.
15.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) Judge
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.