Nagpur: What is the trust registered in the Maharashtra Public Trust Law, 1950, seeks to provide information under the Information Act (RTI), 2005? Nagpur bench from the Bombay High Court on Wednesday directed the registry to submit newspapers before the main justice to consider whether this problem would be referred to a larger bench.
“When questions related to furniture information by public trust based on RTI laws regularly appear to be considered, we have the view that an authoritative statement about a larger aspect is called.
Therefore, the question of whether public trust, which runs institutions that receive grants From the Maharashtra government, whether the duty is bound to provide information based on RTI laws that deserve to be referred to a larger bench, “the division bench consisting of Atul Justice.
Chandurkar and Judge Ga Sanap.
Orders come while hearing the appeal of the letter (LPA) by the community welfare community, through President Madhukarrao Wasnik, who runs the art of PWS and Commerce College in Kampee.
Registered under the Law of Community Registration, 1860, and Maharashtra Act Public Trusts, applicants carry out various educational institutions in the city.
On April 15, one Ravindra wasnik looking for information under RTI from the community, which was rejected by the pretext that the action did not apply to public trust.
The applicant then appealed to the State Information Commissioner (SIC) below Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act.
While it allows its appeal, the SIC directs the applicant to appoint public information officers and provide information sought by the applicant.
The community challenged him in HC before the single judge who held back that since it was running a college that received 100% government grants, public trust / society such as being bound to comply with the provisions of the RTI Act into Public Authority.
The applicant challenged the verdict in front of the division bench by submitting LPA through the Parsodkar advisor who believed that the community did not receive a grant from the service to become a public authority.
The applicant said only because the community to run universities, who received grants from FECECEQUER, could not possibly maintain that it was a public authority and thus responsible for providing information.
Communities and colleges are run by separate and different entities.
It was only a college that received a grant and, therefore, the college was bound to provide information under RTI, the Petitioner argued.