The central legal point established in the judgment is that substantial funding by the appropriate government is essential to classify an entity as a 'public authority' under the RTI Act.

VIBHU BAKHRU, J.

1. The petitioners have filed the present petition, inter alia, impugning the order dated 09.07.2015 (hereafter ‘the impugned order’) passed by the Central Information Commission (hereafter ‘CIC’), whereby the CIC has held the petitioner no.1 (hereafter ‘the petitioner’) to be a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter ‘the RTI Act’).

2. Respondent nos.2 & 3 had filed applications dated 23.12.2010 and 28.05.2013 under the RTI Act seeking certain information from the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 had sought the landed cost of Muriate of Potash (MoP) imported by the petitioner during the period 01.03.2009 to 31.10.2010 and respondent no. 3 had sought information as to the quantity of MoP purchased by two specified concerns from the petitioner during the period December 2006 to March 2009. The petitioner declined to give the information as sought for by the said respondents on the ground that the petitioner was not a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

3. The only question to be addressed in the present petition is whether the petitioner is a ‘public authority’ as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act?

4. Briefly stated, the relevant facts-which remain un-controverted-necessary to address the controversy involved in the present petition are as under:-

5. In 1955 three private companies jointly formed a consortium, for import of potash salts in the interest of agriculture on the advice of the Government of India, under the name and style of Indian Potash Supply Agency Limited (IPSA), which was incorporated on 17.06.1955 under the Companies Act, 1913. After the enactment of the Companies Act, 1956, the petitioner company was incorporated under the said Act as Indian Potash Limited.

6. At the material time, the shareholding of the petitioner was held by three shareholders namely; M/s Shaw Wallace & Co Ltd., Parry & Co. Ltd. and Mysore Fertilizer Co.

7. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner company is a company in the private sector and is run in accordance with its Articles of Association (AOA). The petitioners claim that there is no direct or indirect funding of the petitioner by either the Central or any State Government. Although, some of the petitioner‘s shares are held by Public Sector entities, majority of the shares-about 70%-are held by entities, which are not public authorities within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Only about 12.67% equity is held by Public Sector Enterprises. Thus, out of the total share capital of Rs. 14,29,86,000/- about Rs. 1,81,16,327/- equity capital is held by the Public Sector entities.

8. The CIC analysed the shareholding pattern of the petitioner and observed that 70.22% of the entire shareholding was held by the cooperative sector which included certain cooperatives, namely; IFFCO, Gujarat State Co-Op. Marketing Federation Ltd. and Vidharbha Co-Op. Marketing Federation Ltd., which were not ‘public authorities’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The CIC thus, excluded the shareholding of these entities and concluded that the balance 25.77% of the shareholding were with the Cooperatives, which were under the government control. The CIC assumed that such entities were ‘public authorities’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. In addition, the CIC noted that 20.54% of the issued as subscribed equity shares of the petitioner were held by five Public Sector enterprises, namely; Madras Fertilizers Ltd., Steel Authority of India Ltd., Rashtriya Chemicals and Fertilizers Ltd., Gujarat State Fertilizers and Chemicals Ltd. and Fertilizers and chemicals Travancore Ltd.

9. Taking the aforesaid analysis of shareholding pattern into account, the CIC held that 46.24% - 25.77% held by cooperative sector plus 20.54% held by Public Sector - were funds directly or indirectly from the government coffers or was public money. The CIC also referre