UKHC010112682026 2026:UHC:5489 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS/1994/2026 Ramesh Chandra --Petitioner Versus Uttarakhand Information Commission --Respondent Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J 1. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by dismissal of his appeal by State Information Commissioner vide order dated 01.06.2026. The ground taken for dismissing petitioner’s appeal is that Bar Association Tharali, District Chamoli is not a ‘public authority’, as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 3. Petitioner made an application to Public Information Officer / President / Secretary of Tharali Bar Association seeking various information. Since no reply was given to petitioner in response to the application made by him, therefore, he sent first appeal, by registered post, which was addressed to First Departmental Appellate Authority, Tharali Bar Association, Tharali. The registered envelope containing the appeal was returned unserved to the petitioner with the remarks that “addressee was not found at the given address”. Petitioner thereafter filed Second Appeal, which has been dismissed by State Information UKHC010112682026 2026:UHC:5489 Commissioner. 4. Clause (h) of Section 2 of the Right to Information Act, 20026 defines the expression “Public Authority”, which is extracted below:- “2(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 organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;” 5. Since Bar Association Tharali does not meet any of the conditions mentioned in Clause (h) of Section 2 of Right to Information Act, 2005, therefore, the State Information Commissioner was justified in holding that Second Appeal would not be maintainable against Bar Association Tharali. 6. Thus, the view expressed by State Information Commissioner cannot be faulted. There is no merit in the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J) 07.07.2026 Aswal NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Digitally signed by NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eacc6757ee7881e933ff8934f07477005aa85f9802a3a08b0 8d1369512ea30f3, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=44EB54CBF00B7698CB6F10C2CE3D26F5C22DACF4 F4610C1FE58A58531726FBB0, cn=NITI RAJ SINGH ASWAL Date: 2026.07.07 05:23:43 -07'00'