S. MURALIDHAR

JUDGMENT

1. Is the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. („IFCI Ltd.?) a „public authority? within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 („RTI Act?)? That is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, which challenges an order dated 31st May 2007 passed by the Central Information Commission („CIC?). The CIC answered the question in the affirmative.

2. A complaint was made by the Respondent before the CIC stating that the Petitioner IFCI Ltd. had not published particulars on its website nor appointed Central Public Information Officers (“CPIOs?) which it was required to do in terms of Section 4, Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the RTI Act respectively, on account of which information available with the IFCI Ltd. concerning the complaints made to it was not able to be accessed. In response to the said complaint, the Petitioner IFCI Ltd. took the stand that it was not a public authority within the meaning of the RTI Act.

3. In the appeal before it, the CIC framed two questions: first, whether an institution established under a law, would cease to be a public authority once that law was repealed? And second, whether in this case the shareholding by government can be treated as substantial finance? The first question was answered by holding that IFCI Ltd. was “established” under the Industrial Finance Corporation (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1993 („the 1993 Act?) which was an Act made by Parliament. In answering the second question, the CIC noted that IFCI Ltd. “admitted in the hearing and in the written submission that the GOI owned/controlled banks/FI equity in IFCI is 23.53% as on 31-3-2007.” Further, it clarified that “funds need not be directly provided to constitute substantial finance to a body. In this case it stands admitted that indirect finance of 23.53% exists, which cannot be construed to be insubstantial.” Thus, it held IFCI Ltd. to be a public authority within the definition prescribed under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.

History of IFCI Ltd. 4. A brief enumeration of the history of IFCI Ltd. is necessitated to appreciate the issue that arises in the present petition. The IFCI was established as a statutory corporation in 1948 by the enactment of the Industrial Financial Corporation of India Act, 1948 („the 1948 Act?). It was the first developmental financial institution set up as a statutory corporation under an Act of Parliament to pioneer institutional credit to medium and large scale industries.

5. The Parliament enacted the 1993 Act which was deemed to have come into force on 1st October 1992. Under Section 2(b) of the 1993 Act, “Company” means “the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd., to be formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956.” Under Section 2(c), the “Corporation” means the Industrial Finance Corporation of India established under Section 3(i) of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948. Section 3 of the 1993 Act states, “(o)n such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, appoint, there shall be transferred to, and vest in, the Company, the undertaking of the Corporation.” The other provisions concerned the general effect of the vesting of the undertaking in the company, tax exemptions, officers and other employees of the Corporation etc.

6. Section 11 of the 1993 Act reads as follows: “11. (1) On the appointed day, the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948 shall stand repealed.

(2) Notwithstanding the repeal of the Industrial Finance Corporation Act, 1948, the Company shall, so far as may be, comply with the provisions of sections 33, 34, 34A, 35 and 43 of the Act so repealed for any of the purposes related to the annual accounts of the Corporation.”

7. The effect of the above enactment of 1993 was that IFCI was incorporated as a company under the Companies Act, 1956 by virtue of the above statute. The other peculiar feature of the 1993