The petitioner is questioning the order passed by the first respondent on 18th August 2008, copy of which is produced at Annexure –E and is seeking a further declaration that the petitioner is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act (for short ‘the RTI Act).

2. The facts leading to initiation of these proceedings can be summarized as follows:

The petitioner i.e., Bangalore International Airport Limited (for short ‘BIAL’) is a company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act. The specific case of the petitioner is that it is not a Government Company as defined under Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956. A Shareholders Agreement (SHA) dated 23.01.2002 was entered into between the Karnataka state Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited (KSIIDC), Airport Authority of India (AAI), Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, Flughafen Zuerich AG, Larsen and Toubro Limited and Bangalore International Airport Limited (‘BIAL’). The agreed percentage of holding was 74% with Siemens Project Ventures GmbH, Flughagfen zuerich AG and Larsen & Toubro Limited (together called as “Private Promoters”) and 26% with KSIIDC and AAI (as “State Promoters”). The purpose of this particular venture was to develop an international airport with private sector participation at Devanahalli near Bangalore as a Greenfield project. Under the SHA, the management of the affairs of the company vests in the Board of Directors and under Clause 9.1(ii) of SHA, the Directors representing the Private Promoters constitute the majority of Directors of the petitioner. Further, under the Amendment and Restatement Agreement to the share holders dated 10th June 2005, the Chief Executive Officer, who is in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the Company, is nominated by the Private Promoters. If various clauses of the SHA are read together, they would clearly indicate that the BIAL is not owned by a Government agency. The 26% holding of equity by the State Promoters, according to the petitioners, cannot be classified as substantial nor does it make BIAL a company owned by any Government agency. The Specific case made out by the petitioner is that they cannot be classified as “Public Functionary”. Inasmuch as, all the employees of BIAL are “Private” employees and not Government employees. Hence they would contend that they cannot be classified as a public authority in any manner.

3. The second respondent makes an application under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act seeking suo motu declaration by the petitioner as to the contents provided under section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act. The petitioner replied to the said query indicating that it is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Hence, it is not required to make such a declaration under Section 4(1)b of the RTI Act. The Second respondent aggrieved by the said endorsement, moved the Karnataka Information Commission. The Complaint of the Second respondent before the State Information Commission is under Section 18 of the RTI Act, inasmuch as, the Commission has power to receive and inquire into the complaint from any person wherein it has reasonable ground to do so. The petitioners would contend that the said powers cannot be invoked unless it is classified as a public authority within the meaning of RTI Act. The State Commissioner nevertheless took up the matter for adjudication opining that the matter involves substantial questions of law and posted the matter for hearing before the Full Bench of the Commission. But however, instead of referring the matter to the Full Bench as per the provisions of Rule 4 of the Karnataka Right to Information (Constitution of Benches) Rules, 2006 decided to hear the matter himself and recorded a finding pursuant to its order dated 14.05.2008 that the petitioner is a public authority as defined under the Act and directed the petitioner to provide necessary information to the complainant within