Right to Information – School run by Society– Society covered under the Act. : Right to Information Act, 2005.

It is the case of the petitioner, Shahada Taluka Co-operative Education Society Limited, that the said society has been registered under the provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act in the year 1952 i.e., prior to coming into existence in the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act and the said registration is continued inadvertently and later on in the year 1955, it came to be registered under the provisions of the Bombay Public Trust Act, 1950.

It is the case of the petitioner society that on 16.03.2011, the respondent No.1 herein submitted an application seeking information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the petitioner society in the capacity of Chairman of the Shahada Taluka Co-operative Education Society.

It is the contention of the petitioner society that, as the petitioner society is registered under the Societies Registration Act and under the Bombay Public Trust Act, as per the Right to Information Act the petitioner society does not fall under the definition of “public authority”, and hence the petitioner society is not duty bound to supply information sought by the respondent No.1.

The Court observed that it was not in dispute that the schools run by the petitioner society are receiving grant in aid from the State Government. The distinction which is sought to be made by the counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is the Chairman of the Shahada Taluka Cooperative Education Society and the information sought is in respect of the affairs of the society and not about the school which is receiving grant in aid directly in the account of the Head Master, and therefore, the petitioner is not obliged to give information sought for. It clearly appears that the Shahada Taluka Cooperative Education Society is established for imparting education. The sole purpose of forming such society is for establishing school and imparting education.

Therefore, the distinction which is tried to be made by the petitioner, as aforementioned, needs no consideration. Though the Information Officer is appointed, the petitioner, when called upon to furnish the information, is bound to supply the same to the respondent No.1.

By way of impugned order, only direction is issued to the petitioner to furnish the information as sought by the respondent no.1 within 15 days. Acceptance of the interpretation of the arguments of the petitioner that information sought is in respect of affairs of the society and not in respect of the school receiving grant in aid, would defeat the object of introducing the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Right to Information Act, 2005 has been introduced with laudable object and said cannot be defeated by accepting narrow interpretation as canvassed by the petitioner.

In that view of the matter, the contention of the petitioner was not accepted.