VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petitions impugning a common order dated 05.08.2013 (hereafter ‘impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) holding that the respondent – Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (hereafter ‘IFFCO’) is not a ‘Public Authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the ‘Act’).

2. The relevant facts pertaining to W.P. (C) No.6751//2013 are that the petitioner - Subhash Chandra Agrawal, filed an application dated 20.01.2011 under the Act with IFFCO seeking various information. By a letter dated 03.02.2011, IFFCO rejected the said application stating that IFFCO has no government equity and IFFCO is not a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Act. On 31.03.2013, the first appeal filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal against the letter dated 03.02.2011 was also rejected. Thereafter, Subhash Chandra Agarwal filed a second appeal (No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001245) before the CIC against the order dated 31.03.2013.

3. Subhash Chandra Agrawal also filed an application dated 20.01.2011 under the Act with the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation seeking various information. By a letter dated 24.02.2011, the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation transferred the said application to IFFCO. On 04.03.2011, the first appeal filed by Subhash Chandra Agarwal against the letter dated 24.02.2011 was also transferred by the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation to the Appellate Authority of IFFCO. Thereafter, Subhash Chandra Agrawal filed a second appeal (No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001246) before the CIC against the order dated 04.03.2011.

4. The relevant facts pertaining to W.P.(C) No.824/2014 are that the petitioner - Dr. M. Haroon Siddiqui, filed applications dated 18.05.2010 and 22.05.2010 under the Act with IFFCO seeking various information. On 02.06.2010, IFFCO rejected the said applications contending that it was not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. On 08.07.2010, the appeal filed by Dr. M. Haroon Siddiqui challenging the refusal of information was rejected by the First Appellate Authority of IFFCO. Thereafter, Dr. M. Haroon Siddiqui filed a second appeal (No.CIC/SS/A/2011/001565) before the CIC against the order of First Appellate Authority dated 08.07.2010.

5. The CIC, by the impugned order dated 05.08.2013, rejected all three aforementioned second appeals filed by the petitioners and held that IFFCO is not a public authority under the Act. The CIC observed that IFFCO is not substantially financed and controlled by the appropriate government.

6. Thus, the issue to be addressed is whether IFFCO is substantially financed and/or controlled by the appropriate government so as to fall within the sweep of Section 2(h) of the Act.

Submissions

7. The petitioners contended that IFFCO is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act as according to them, IFFCO is controlled and substantially financed by the Central Government. It was contended that the Government has exhaustive powers under the Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act, 2002 (hereafter the ‘MSCS Act’) for taking over management and control of Multi-State Cooperative Societies and as IFFCO is a Multi-State Cooperative Society, the Government exercises substantial control by virtue of the MSCS Act. The petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs. Ramesh Chander Bawa, (2010) 118 DRJ 176 in support of their contention. In particular, the learned counsel referred to paragraph 59 of the said judgment which read as under:-

“59. Just as the right to vote of the ‘little’ citizen is of profound significance in a democracy, so is the right to information. It is another small but potent key in the hands of India's ‘little’ people that can ‘unlock’ and lay bare the internal workings of public authorities whose decisions affect their daily lives in myriad unknown ways. What w