1. Is the Indian Railway Welfare Organisation („IRWO?) a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(1)(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act?)? The Central Information Commission („CIC?) has in the impugned order answered the said question in the affirmative. The CIC?s order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the IRWO.

2. The IRWO states that it is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act of 1860. Its principal object is to promote and provide dwelling units all over India to serving and retired railway personnel and their widows on a no profit no loss basis. The dwelling units provided by the IRWO are on self-financing basis. It is stated that the IRWO?s memorandum specifies that the sources of funds of the IRWO would be predominantly and chiefly from nationalized and commercial banks. It is submitted that IRWO receives no grant from the Railway Board or the Central Government. It received a loan of Rs.10 crores from the Ministry of Railways which has since been repaid. A loan of Rs.6 crores was taken from the Railway public sector undertakings (PSUs) of which only Rs.1.2 crores remains to be paid. IRWO submits that its affairs are administered by a governing body of which the Member (Staff) Railway Board is the ex-officio Chairman. It is submitted that the IRWO is neither an agent nor an instrumentality of State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. It maintains that there is neither a deep nor a pervasive control of the IRWO by the Indian Railways or the Ministry of Railways. There is no substantial funding of the IRWO either directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government, i.e the central government.

3. In the impugned order, the CIC has highlighted the following factors for concluding that IRWO is a „public authority? within the meaning of Section 2(1) (h) of the RTI Act:

(a) IRWO is indirectly owned, controlled and substantially financed by the Railway Board and the Ministry of Railways.

(b) The initiation of the registration of the IRWO was by the Ministry of Railways. The basic infrastructure including land was also provided by the Railway Board and the Ministry of Railways.

(c) The initial loan of Rs.10 crores and the loans by the Railway PSUs constituted indirect financing of the IRWO.

(d) Property provided to the IRWO for its head quarters in Delhi was at a very nominal rate and that also constituted indirect financing by the central government.

(e) IRWO works for the welfare of Railway employees and if a regime of transparency is ushered, the faith of Railway employees in it would be strengthened.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the IRWO had written to the Adviser, Land and Amenities, Railway Board on 10th May 2006 pointing out why it was not a public authority under Section 2(1)(h) of the RTI Act. No reply in response thereto was received from the Railway Board. On the other hand, at a meeting held to discuss the question of granting of loan to the IRWO by the Ministry of Railways, the Railway Board opined as under: “IRWO is an independent organization. Ministry of Railway does not give any grant or loan to an independent organization. It cannot form part of our budget. It is correct that financial assistance was provided in 1989-90. But that was with the approval of the Ministry of Finance. In this case also it has to be with the approval of Ministry of Finance. Further, as per the extant orders on `New Service/New Instrument of Service?, loans to be provided to Public/Private institutions require Parliament?s approval.”

5. It is submitted that it is not as if IRWO is granted a loan by the Ministry of Railways as and when it raises a demand. The Ministry of Railways exercises no control, whether administrative or financial, over the working of the IRWO. There are only 4 officials in the Ministry of Railways in ex officio capacity out of the total 19 members in the governing b