2008 (8) TMI 464 - HC - Central Excise

Appellant Deemed 'Public Authority' under RTI Act

The court held that the appellant is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, as it was found to be both controlled ... This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Writ Court, whereby the learned Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, whereby the State Commission, the first respondent herein, held that the appellant is a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) and directed the appellant to furnish the required information to the second respondent. - The RTI Act has also provided a remedy for facilitating the exercise of the right to information and the reason for the remedy is also indicated in the Preamble to the Act - Such an Act must receive a purposive interpretation to further the purpose of the Act. So any interpretation which frustrates the purpose of RTI Act must be eschewed. Following the said well known canon of construction, this Court interprets the expression ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h)(d)(i) liberally, so that the authorities like the appellant who are controlled and substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, come within the purview of the RTI Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act which necessitates a construction which will hopefully cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive effect of corruption and infuse transparency in its activities. - Held that the appellant is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act - learned Judge of the writ Court came to a correct conclusion Issues Involved:1. Whether the appellant is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.2. Whether the appellant is controlled or substantially financed by the government.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Whether the appellant is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005:The appellant challenged the decision of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, which held that the appellant is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) includes any authority or body established by the Constitution, by any law made by Parliament or State Legislature, or by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and also includes any body owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government.The appellant argued that it is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and jointly promoted by TIDCO (a public sector undertaking) and IL&FS (a non-government investment company), each holding 50% shares. Therefore, it does not fall within the ambit of a 'public authority' as defined in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.2. Whether the appellant is controlled or substantially financed by the government:Upon examining the Memorandum and Articles of Association, it was found that the appellant-company was incorporated in 1998 and its promoters are TIDCO and IL&FS. The shareholding of IL&FS includes significant stakes by public sector undertakings like LIC, indicating government influence.The Board of Directors of the appellant-company includes government officials and IAS officers, with the Chairman being the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu. This composition indicates that the appellant-company is controlled by the government.Regarding substantial financing, the project cost was estimated at Rs. 84.41 crores, with the State Government sanctioning Rs. 34 crores and the Government of India contributing Rs. 12.5 crores under the ASIDE Scheme. The land acquisition cost of Rs. 43 crores was also borne by the government. This substantial financial involvement by the government supports the argument that the appellant is substantially financed by the government.The court noted that the RTI Act aims to promote transparency and accountability in public authorities. The definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) should be interpreted liberally to include bodies controlled or substantially financed by the government.The court referred to the principle of purposive interpretation, emphasizing that the RTI Act should be interpreted to further its objective of ensuring transparency and accountability. The court concluded that the appellant-company, being controlled and substantially financed by the government, falls within the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.Conclusion:The court held that the appellant is a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the writ court was upheld. The appellant was directed to furnish the required information to the respondent as per the RTI Act.