# Dhara Singh Girls High School v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2008) 1 ILRA 81
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2008-01-24
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4747 of 2008
- **Bench:** Rakesh Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dhara-singh-girls-high-school-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41150
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Right to Information Act 2005-Section
2(h)-Private
School-run
through
management duly recognized, within the
purview of grant in aid-discharging
public
duty-bound
to
give
required
information-necessary direction issued.

Held: Para14 & 19

Though the institution may be a private
institution but if it is substantially
financed directly or indirectly by the
State Government such as by grant-inaid for payment of salary of the teachers
,and staff under the control of the 'public
authority' as to monitor the expenses
provided by the State Government in this
regard as given in the objects and
reasons of the Act, it will fall under the
purview of the Right to Information Act.

It is directed that the institution will
provide information to respondent no.5
through the DIOS, Ghaziabad within a
period of 15 days as already much time
has been consumed by the institution for
not supplying the required information
within the time prescribed under the Act

## Text

1 All] Dhara Singh Girls High School V. State of U.P. and others
81
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.01.2008

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.4747 of 2008

Dhara
Singh
Girls
High
School,
Ghaziabad

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri. Satyam Singh
Sri. Shiv Nath Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri. S.K. Tyagi
S.C.

Right to Information Act 2005-Section
2(h)-Private
School-run
through
management duly recognized, within the
purview of grant in aid-discharging
public
duty-bound
to
give
required
information-necessary direction issued.

Held: Para14 & 19

Though the institution may be a private
institution but if it is substantially
financed directly or indirectly by the
State Government such as by grant-inaid for payment of salary of the teachers
,and staff under the control of the 'public
authority' as to monitor the expenses
provided by the State Government in this
regard as given in the objects and
reasons of the Act, it will fall under the
purview of the Right to Information Act.

It is directed that the institution will
provide information to respondent no.5
through the DIOS, Ghaziabad within a
period of 15 days as already much time
has been consumed by the institution for
not supplying the required information
within the time prescribed under the Act

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
learned
counsel
for
the
respondents, learned Standing counsel for
the State and perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
for issuance of a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to compel the petitioner's
institution to give information as sought
by respondent no.5.

3. Further a writ of mandamus is
also sought for restraining the respondents
from taking any action against the
petitioner's institution for not giving
information to respondent no.5 as directed
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Ghaziabad.

4. The ground on the basis of which
the relief sought is that the petitioner is a
private
institution
which
has
been
recognized by the Madhyamik Shiksha
Parishad receiving grant-in-aid by the
State Government does not fall within the
ambit of Section 2(g) of the Right to
Information
Act,
2005,
hereinafter
referred to as the Act, hence the
institution cannot be compelled to give
information which has been sought by
respondent no.5 by moving an application
to the DIOS and no action can be taken
against the petitioner under the aforesaid
Act. Reliance has been placed by the
learned counsel for the petitioner upon an
interim order dated 12.9.2007 passed by
this Court in Writ Petition No. 41818 of
2007 which is as under:

"Connect with Writ Petition No.
13211 of 2007.
82 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

Learned
Standing
Counsel
has
accepted notice for the respondent nos. 1
and 2.

Issue notice to the respondent no.3
fixing a date immediately after six weeks.

All the respondents may file counter
affidavit by the next date.

In the connected writ petition, it has
been contended that the Committee of
Management of private institution which
has been recognized by Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad and is receiving grantin-aid from the State Government does
not answer description of ' public
authority' as per Section 2(h) of Right to
Information Act as such institution in
question cannot be compelled to answer
before the aforementioned authority.

As the issue raised in the present writ
petition is identical to the issue raised in
the aforementioned writ petition, as such,
the petitioner is also entitled to grant of
interim order as has been granted in the
connected writ petition.

Accordingly, it is provided that till
the next date of listing no action shall be
taken against the petitioner under the
Right to Information Act, 2005."

5. He has urged that in another
similar writ petition No. 13231 of 2007,
C/M Sri Gandhi Smarak and another Vs.
State of U.P. and others this Court has
also passed an order dated 13.3.2007 on
the point whether such private institutions
fall within the ambit of 'public authority'
as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right
to Information Act, 2005, though they
may have been recognized by the
Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad and are
receiving grant-in-aid from the State
Government, the Court has held that such
institutions as aforesaid do not answer
description of 'public , authority' as
defined under Section 2(h) of the Act. The
order dated 31.3.2007 is also an interim
order of this Court which has been
appended as Annexure-7 to the writ
petition.

6. A perusal of the two interim
orders aforesaid dated 13.3.2007 and
12.9.2007 show that the Court has noted
the contentions of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the private institutions
have been recognized by the Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad and are receiving grantin-aid did not conform description as of
'pubic authority' as defined in Section 2(h)
of the Right to Information Act which
was only issue raised by the petitioner at
the time of admission. An interim order
which is passed at the time of admission
pending proceedings to be complied with
in order to balance the equities during the
pendency of the petition is not a final
adjudication of dispute. It is not a
judgment and has no persuasive value.

7. It appears from the record that
respondent no.5 had sought certain
information
from
the
petitioner's
institution
regarding
appointment
of
Principal of "Deepmala" and with regard
to the income and expenditure etc. Since
the nature of information sought is
relevant, the letter of respondent no.5
seeking information under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 appended as
Annexure-1 and Annexure-3 are quoted
below.
Annexure No.1

lsok esa]

Jheku~ ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh]

xkft;kcknA

fo"k;%& tu lwpuk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds varxZr lwpuk
izkIr djus ds laca/k esaA
1 All] Dhara Singh Girls High School V. State of U.P. and others
83
egksn;]

1-
/kkjk flag xYlZ twfu;j gkbZLdwy xÅ'kkyk jksM+
xkft;kckn esa iz/kkuk/;kid in ij nhiekyk dh fu;qfDr fdl
fnukad dks gqbZA
2-
iz/kkuk/;kid ds in dh foHkkx }kjk fjDr in ij
fu;qfDr ds fy, txg fdl fnukad dks fudkyh x;h\
3-
iz/kkuk/;kid dk in fdldh txg fjDr gqvk\
fu;qfDr ds le; iz/kkuk/;kid dk vuqHko fdrus o"kZ gksuk
pkfg, ,oa iz/kkuk/;kid dh mez fdruh gksuh pkfg;s\
4-
iz/kkuk/;kid nhiekyk dh fu;qfDr ds le; Ldwy
izca/kd desVh ds p;u lfefr esa dkSu&dkSu inkf/kdkjh Fks\

5-
iz/kkuk/;kid nhiekyk dh fu;qfDr ds le; f'k{kk
foHkkx ds inkf/kdkjh dkSu&dkSu Fks\
6-
iz/kkuk/;kid nhiekyk dk iz/kkuk/;kid in dk
vuqeksnu f'k{kk foHkkx ds fu;ekuqlkj fdl vf/kdkjh ds
gLrk{kj ls fdl fnukad dks fd;k x;k\
7-
iz/kkuk/;kid dh fu;qfDr ds le; nhiekyk dk
ch0,M0 ds ckn vuqHko fdrus o"kZ dk Fkk\ ,oa fdl Ldwy
dk v/;kid vuqHko Fkk ,oa mez D;k Fkh\
8-
nhiekyk ds iz/kkuk/;kid in ij fu;qfDr gksus ls
igys fdldh fu;qfDr iz/kkuk/;kid in ij Fkh\ mldk fdl
fnukad dks R;kx i= fn;k x;k nhiekyk dk iz/kkuk/;kid in
ij fu;qfDr laca/kh ck;ksMkVk nsus dh d`ik djsaA

izkFkhZ tu lwpuk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds lHkh fu;eksa dk
ikyu djus dks rS;kj gSA
izkFkh

layXu % 10 :i;as dk iksLVy vkMZj

g0@-
ua0 61 bZ 514309

1⁄4cyjkt flag iq= Jh izse flag1⁄2
 144 ek/kksiqjk] xkft;kcknA

Annexure-3

lsok esa]

Jheku~ ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh]

xkft;kcknA

fo"k;%& tu lwpuk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2005 ds varxZr
lwpuk izkIr djus ds laca/k esaA

ftldh fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd 10@& :i;s iksLVy vkMZj la[;k%
66 bZ 265235 10.07.07 fnukad layXu gSA

1-
/kkjk flag xYlZ twfu;j gkbZLdwy xÅiqjh+ xkft;kckn
dh Nk=kvksa ls Qhl ds :i esa jsMdzkl dh /kujkf'k yh tkrh
gSA izfr o"kZ Nk=kvksa dh la[;k dk fooj.k o"kZ 1988 ls
2007 rdA
2-
Nk=kvksa ls fy;k x;k jsMdzkl dh /kujkf'k Ldwy ds
fdl cSad [kkrs esa tek gksrh gSA
3-
Nk=kvksa ls fy;k x;k jsMdzkl dh /kujkf'k mDr Ldwy
cSad [kkrs esa o"kZ 1988 ls 2007 rd tek izfro"kZ /kujkf'k
dk fooj.kA
4-
mDr Ldwy cSad [kkrs esa tek jsMdzkl dh /kujkf'k
izfro"kZ fdruh /kujkf'k fdl&fdl fnukad dks fudkyh x;h
/kujkf'k dk fooj.kA

izkFkhZ dks tu lwpuk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e 2005 ds
vUrxZr lwpuk izkIr djkus dh d`ik djsa vkidh vfr d`ik
gksxhA
izkFkh]

g0@-

1⁄4cyjkt flag iq= Jh izse flag1⁄2
144 ek/kksiqjk] xkft;kcknA

izfrfyfi&Jheku ftykf/kdkjh xkft;kcknA
fnukad% 10.07.2007

8. The DIOS on the aforesaid
request under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 had directed the institution to
provide
information
required
by
respondent no.5. The institution did not
comply with the directions of District
Basic Education Officer, Ghaziabad and
submitted the interim orders passed in the
two
petitions
i.e.
41818/2007
and
13231/2007.
The
DIOS,
Ghaziabad
thereafter informed the petitioner that the
interim orders aforesaid pertain to other
institutions and not to the petitioner's
institution as such he should supply the
information required.

9. Aggrieved the petitioner has come
up in this writ petition for restraining the
DIOS from giving the information sought
by respondent no.5 and not to take any
coercive action against the institution.
84 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008

10.

Before
adverting
to
the
controversy involved in the present writ
petition the necessary provisions of the
Right to Information Act, 2005 may be
referred.

11. According to its objects and
reasons the Right to Information Act,
2005 is an Act " to provide for 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, the
constitution of a 'Central Information
Commission
and
Stale
Information
Commissions and for matters connected
therewith or incidental thereto." It was in
the context with objects and reasons that
the parliament enacted the Right to
Information Act, 2005.

12. Section 2(a)(f)(h)(i) and (j)
define"
appropriate
Government,
Competent authority, Information, Public
authority and Right to Information Act."
which are as under:

(a) "appropriate Government" means
in relation to a public authority which is
established,
constituted,
owned,
controlled or substantially financed by
funds provided directly or indirectly

(i) by the Central Government or the
Union territory administration, the Central
Government;

(ii) by the State Government, the
State Government;

(f) "information" means any material
in
any
form,
including
records,
documents, memos, e-mails, opinions,
advices, press releases, circulars, orders,
logbooks,
contracts,
reports,
papers,
samples, models, data material held in any
electronic form and information relating
to any private body which can be
accessed by a public authority under any
other law for the time being in force;
(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 organization
substantially
financed,
directly
or
indirectly by funds provided
by
the
appropriate Government;
(i) "records" includes

(i) any document, manuscript and
file;

(ii) any microfilm, microfiche and
facsimile copy of a document;

(iii) any reproduction of image or
images embodied in such microfilm
(whether enlarged or not); and

 (iv) any other material produced by
a computer or any other device;

(j) " right to information" means the
right to information accessible under this
Act which
is held by or under the
control of any public authority and
includes the right to

(i) inspection of work, documents,
records;

(ii) taking notes, extracts or certified
copies of documents or records;

(iii) taking certified samples of
material;

(iv) obtaining information in the
form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video
cassettes or in any other electronic mode
1 All] Dhara Singh Girls High School V. State of U.P. and others
85
or
through
printouts
where
such
information is stored in a computer or in
any other devices."

13. Section 3 provides for right to
information to all the citizens subject to
the provisions of the Act. Section 4 puts
an obligation on the public authority to
maintain all its records for providing
information. Section 6 provides that the
request for obtaining information is to be
made in writing to be accompanied with
such fee as prescribed. Section 7 provides
procedure for disposal of request whereas
Section 8 provides for exemption from
disclosure of information. The exemption
is
provided
only
with
regard
to
information, disclosure of which would
prejudicially affect the sovereignty and
integrity of India, the security, strategic,
scientific or economic interest of 'the
State, relation with foreign State or lead to
incitement of an offence; the information
which has been expressly forbidden to be
published by any Court of law or tribunal
or the disclosure of which may constitute
contempt of Court; information, the
disclosure of which would cause a breach
of privilege of Parliament or the State
Legislature; and information including
commercial confidence, trade secrets or
intellectual property, the disclosure of
which would harm the competitive
position of a third party, unless the
competent authority is satisfied that a
larger
public
interest
warrants
the
disclosure of such information and so on.

14. From perusal of the objects and
reasons
for enacting the Right to
Information Act, 2005 it is apparent that
the Government desired to establish a
practical regime of right to information
for
citizens
to
have
accessed
to
information under the control of public
authorities,
in
order
to
promote
transparency and accountability in their
working. Though the institution may be a
private institution but if it is substantially
financed directly or indirectly by the State
Government such as by grant-in-aid for
payment of salary of the teachers and staff
under the control of the 'public authority'
as to monitor the expenses provided by
the State Government in this regard as
given in the objects and reasons of the
Act, it will fall under the purview of the
Right to Information Act.

15. Such institutions do not ousted
Section 2(h)(d)(ii) of the Act. It is not
denied by the petitioner that information
sought
by respondent no.5 is not
exempted information under Section 8 of
the aforesaid Act, 2005 It applies to a
non-government
organization
substantially
financed
directly
or
indirectly by funds provided by the
appropriate Government by which the
petitioner is covered.

16. Admittedly, the petitioner is
financed by the State, Government
substantially and is receiving grant-in-aid
from the State Government, therefore, the
District Basic Education Officer has
rightly sought information from the
petitioner which can not be denied only
on the pretext that since respondent no.5
has filed a number of complaints against
him and there is inter-se litigations
between the parties, hence the institution
is not obliged to provide information.

17. Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no.5, submits
that there is another aspect of the matter
which may be looked into by the Court
i.e. in many of the institutions the
petitioner has appointed his men by taking
86 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2008
money and is squandering government
funds, therefore, respondent no.5 has
sought information under the Right to
Information Act in order to bring to the
notice of the authority the fact that the
petitioner is not working in a democratic
manner, in accordance with the status and
is squandering government money. He
submits that the Management of any
institution can not be permitted to put a
word over the eyes of the public in the
garb of protection from the Right to
Information Act on the ground that it is a
private institution and is not amenable to
Right to Information Act which in fact is
otherwise as such protection would
frustrate the very object of the Act of
transparency and accountability of public
authority and private bodies in their
functioning from public eye.

18. In my opinion, whenever there is
even an ,iota of nexus regarding control
and finance of public authority over the
activity of a private body or institution or
an organization etc. the same would fall
under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the
Act. The provisions of the Act have to be
read in consonance and in harmony with
its objects and reasons given in the Act
which have to be given widest meaning in
order to ensure that unscrupulous persons
do not get benefits of concealment of their
illegal activities or illegal acts by being
exempted under the Act and are able to
hide nothing from the public. The
working of any such organization or
institution of any such private body
owned or under control of public
authority shall be amenable to the Right
to Information Act. The petitioner being
an institution recognized under the
provisions of U.P. High School and
Intermediate Education Act, 1929 and
receiving grant-in-aid from the State
Government is therefore, covered under
the aforesaid Act.

For the reasons stated above, the writ
petition is dismissed.

19. It is directed that the institution
will provide information to respondent
no.5 through the DIOS, Ghaziabad within
a period of 15 days as already much time
has been consumed by the institution for
not supplying the required information
within the time prescribed under the Act.

20. Let a certified copy of this order
be supplied to the learned Standing
counsel for information to the DIOS,
Ghaziabad on free of cost.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.12.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SUSHIL HARKAULI, J
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 2289 of 1982

Bateshwari and others
...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P.

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri. P.N. Mishra
Sri. Kamal Krishna
Sri. S.D.N. Singh
Sri. Krishna Kapoor
Sri. Dilip Kumar
Sri. Rajeev Gupta

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Code
of
Criminal
Procedure-Criminal
Appeal-offence under Section 302(34