Vipin Sanghi, J.

1. The present writ petitions have been preferred under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, to assail the Common order dated 05.03.2010 passed by the Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as the “CIC”) in Complaint no. CIC/SG/C/2009/001472+001312 & Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000341, whereby the CIC has held the Petitioner Company to be a “Public Authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”).

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner company was incorporated on 19.04.2006 as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “GNCTD”), for the purpose of implementing “Integrated multi-modal transit Network Projects”. The initial paid up share capital of the petitioner company was Rs.7,30,39,000/- divided into 73039 equity shares of Rs.1,000/- each, and the same was entirely held by GNCTD.

2.2 On 04.07.2007, a Shareholder’s Agreement (SHA) was entered into between the GNCTD and Infrastructure Development Finance Company (hereinafter referred to as the “IDFC”), wherein IDFC agreed to subscribe to the paid up share capital of the petitioner Company to the extent of Rs. 7,30,39,000/-. After the Subscription by IDFC to the equity shares of the petitioner Company, the shareholding of GNCTD and IDFC was 73039 shares each. Six shares were held by six Government nominees. This position continued till 13.10.2009. Thereafter, on 14.10.2009, 6 shares of the petitioner Company were subscribed by IDFC, making its shareholding 50% in the petitioner company, i.e. equal to that of the GNCTD.

2.3 The respondent in W.P. (C) in 2381/2010 vide e-mail dated 03.02.2009, addressed to the petitioner, sought details of CPIO/APIO, First Appellate Authority etc. of the petitioner as the same had not been provided for on the petitioner’s website. The petitioner vide its response dated 17.02.2009 claimed that it was not a “Public Authority” within the meaning of the Act, and therefore it did not have a CPIO, APIO etc.

2.4 Being aggrieved by the said response, the respondent filed a complaint (referred to as Appeal No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000341) before the CIC under Section 18(1)(a) of the Act. Notice dated 29.07.2009 was issued to the Petitioner directing it to state whether it fulfilled any of the criteria laid down in Section 2(h) of the Act. The petitioner vide its response dated 13.08.2009 stated that it did not meet any of the criteria.

2.5 The Respondent in W.P. (C) 2380/2010, as Secretary of “Nyaya-Bhoomi”, filed an RTI application under the Act on 03.09.2009, and sought certain information from the petitioner Company. In reply to the said application, the petitioner company claimed that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of “Public Authority” in terms of Section 2(h) of the Act and advised the respondent to direct his application/questions to the Transport Department, GNCTD.

2.6 Aggrieved by the response, the respondent filed a complaint no. CIC/SG/C/2009/001312 dated 10.09.2009 under Section 18(1) of the Act before the CIC. The CIC issued notice dated 16.09.2009 to the petitioner, calling upon the petitioner to provide the information as sought by the respondent and sought an explanation from the petitioner for not supplying the information within the mandated time, upon its prima facie observation that the information has not been provided by the petitioner without stating any reasons. The petitioner by its reply dated 05.10.2009 stated before the CIC that it was not a public Authority within the Act, and that the Act was not applicable to it.

2.7 In the meantime, the respondent (in W.P. (C) 2380/2010) filed another application dated 08.10.2009 seeking more information from the petitioner under the Act. Petitioner vide its reply dated 13.10.2009, advised the respondent to take up his request with the Transport Department,