Vibhu Bakhru, J:

1. The petitioner calls into question rulings of the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’) – order dated 15.04.2011 impugned in W.P.(C) No.3110/2011 and order dated 08.06.2011 impugned in W.P.(C) No.5809/2011 (hereafter ‘impugned orders’) - holding the petitioner to be a ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the Act’) and calling upon the petitioner to appoint a Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) and an Appellate Authority.

2. Briefly stated, the relevant facts pertaining to W.P.(C) No.3110//2011 are under:-

2.1 Respondent no.2 – Gaurav Tripathi, filed an application dated 30.07.2010 and respondent no.1 - Hatim Ali filed applications dated 23.09.2010 and 20.11.2010 under the Act with the petitioner seeking various information. The petitioner rejected the said applications alleging that the Act is not applicable as the petitioner is not a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Act.

2.2 Thereafter, Gaurav Tripathi filed a complaint (No. CIC/SS/C/2010/ 000595) under Section 18 of the Act, before the CIC for taking an action against the PIO of the petitioner for denial of information. Hatim Ali also filed separate complaints (No.CIC/SS/C/2010/000594 and No.CIC/SS/C/2010/000006) before the CIC alleging denial of information. The petitioner responded by stating that the information as sought for was provided to respondent nos.1 and 2 without prejudice to its contention that it is not a public authority under the Act; affidavits to this effect were also filed before the CIC.

2.3 By a common order dated 15.04.2011, the CIC held the petitioner to be a public authority under the Act and directed the petitioner to appoint a CPIO and an Appellate Authority.

3. Brief stated, the relevant facts related to W.P.(C) No.5809/2011 are as under:-

3.1 The respondent – Aseem Takyar filed an application dated 24.05.2010 under the Act with the PIO of Assistant Commissioner (HQ), Government of NCT of Delhi seeking various information. The said application was transferred to Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) of the petitioner under Section 6(3) of the Act. The petitioner, by its letter dated 08.06.2010, refused to furnish information contending that it was not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.

3.2 Since the information sought for was declined, Aseem Takyar filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (HQ) - First Appellate Authority. By an order dated 26.07.2010, the First Appellate Authority directed the PIO(HQ) and APIO(HQ) to obtain the necessary information from the concerned authorities and provide the same to the respondent. And, pursuant to the order dated 26.07.2010, certain information was provided to Aseem Takyar.

3.3 On 21.06.2010, Aseem Takyar filed another application under the Act with the CPIO of the National Dairy Development Board, Gujarat (hereafter 'NDDB') seeking information as to whether the Act is applicable to the petitioner and “whether any, financial grant was received from Government of India for setting up 'mother dairy’. In response to the application, the CPIO of NDDB, by its letter dated 02.09.2010, provided the details of loans and grants as sought for by Aseem Takyar. However, with respect to the information pertaining to Mother Dairy he responded as under:-

“Under the Operation Flood programme four Mother Dairies were conceptualized i.e at Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras. Since you have mentioned only Mother Dairy in your request for information, we are unable to foresee to which Mother Dairy you are referring to. You are therefore, requested to clearly specify on which Mother Dairy you are seeking information.”

3.4 Aseem Takyar was not satisfied by the information provided by the CPIO of NDDB and filed an appeal before Senior General Manager (CF) - First Appellate Authority.

3.5 Aseem Takyar also filed a complaint (No.CIC/SG/A/2010/002949) dated 09.10.2010 under Se