ORDER :

Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.

1. Since common facts and question of law are involved in both the writ petitions, they are being considered and decided by this common order.

2. Petitioner would call in question the legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24-1-2008 passed in complaint case No. 258/2007 (WPC No. 1332 of 2008) and the impugned order dated 31-1-2008 passed in complaint case No. 581/2007 (WPC No. 1352 of 2008) by the Chief Information Commissioner, State Information Commission, allowing the appeal preferred by the respondent No. 3 (Rakesh Choubey in WPC No. 1332 of 2008 and Pramod Tiwari in WPC No. 1352 of 2008) directing the petitioner to supply information to the said respondents.

3. Challenge to the impugned orders is mainly on the ground that petitioner being a registered society bearing Regn. No. 16/1951-52, therefore, being a private body it is not covered within the meaning of term 'public authority' defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short 'the RTI Act').

4. Referring to Sections 4 to 7 of the RTI Act, it is argued that the liability or obligation to provide information is on any public authority and not on any non-Government or private organization. It is also argued that the petitioner has never been substantially financed, directly or indirectly for running the petitioner's educational institution; therefore, it is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Reliance has been placed upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2013) 16 SCC 82.

5. Respondents would refer to circular (Annexure - P/14) as also the document Annexure - P/8 whereby 75307 sq.ft. land has been allotted to the petitioner society at a substantially concessional rate of Rs. 1,706.14 paisa and annual lease rent of Rs. 42.65 paisa, therefore, it is substantially financed by the State Government and, as such, it is a public authority.

6. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines the 'public authority'. The same is quoted below for ready reference:

2. Definitions.--

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

(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;

7. In Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited (2013) 16 SCC 82 (supra) the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the scope of embrace within the act, of an entity, which is owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly or funds have been provided by the appropriate government or non-governmental organizations substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. The meaning of the words 'substantially financed' has been dealt with in paras 46 to 48, which are quoted below:

Substantially financed

46. The words "substantially financed" have been used in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii), while defining the expression public authority as well., as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression "appropriate Government". A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The expression "substantially financed", as such, has not been defined under the Act. "Substantial" means "in a substantial manner so as to be substantial". In Palser v. Grinling, while interpreting the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, the House of Lords held that "substantial" is not the same as "not unsubstantial" i.e. just enough to avoid the