sabharwal786 295 Posted September 2, 2017 Share Posted September 2, 2017 COMPLAINT CASE NO.1941/2015 In the aforementioned findings the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India says that the funding has to be substantial to the extent that the body practically runs by such funds but for which the authority would struggle to exist. In the final lines of Para 38 it says that the private Educational Institution getting 95% Grant-in-Aid from the appropriate Government may answer the definition of Public Authority under Section 2(h) (d) (ii) of the Act. The Trust indisputably is availing the 95% grant towards the salary of the staff. It is also admitted a prime land on which the various Institutions are being run has been allotted on a nominal lease. We can foresee that but for the above grants-in-aid and other concessions towards land allotment respondents would not have been able to run the Institutions in its present form. It is thus manifestly clear that the respondents are substantially being financed by the State Government directly as well as indirectly. The Trust in its constituent units as such squarely fits in the definition of a Public Authority under Section 2(h) (d) (ii) of the Act. The respondent Trust, therefore, is hereby declared as a Public Authority under Section 2(h) of the Act and is directed to designate a Public Information Officer and First Appellate Authority besides taking all measures as enshrined under Section 4 of the RTI Act and arrange to furnish the information to the complainant as asked for within a month from the date of receipt of this order positively. Orders of PSIC.pdf 0 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.