The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the term 'public authority' under the RTI Act, emphasizing the corporation's ownership, control, and financing by the State Government.

The petitioner is the New Tirupur Area Development Corporation Ltd. represented by its Authorised Signatory. The prayer in the writ petition filed by them is for setting aside the order, dated 23. 2008 passed by the second respondent, wherein and by which the State Information Commission (R2) held that the petitioner is a "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h)(d) in view of the public funding and the Government control and therefore, they were directed to supply the information sought for by the fourth and fifth respondents within 15 days. The writ petition was admitted on 22.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. In the other application for an interim injunction, only notice was ordered.

2. The short question arises for consideration is whether the petitioner company is a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act).

3. Heard the arguments of Mr. AL. Somayaji, learned senior counsel appearing for Mr. S. Raghunathan, counsel for petitioner, Mrs. C.K. Vishnupriya, learned Additional Government Pleader for first respondent, Mr. G. Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel appearing for GR Associates for second respondent and Mr. P.V. Ravi Chandran, learned counsel for respondents 4 and 5.

4. Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act reads as follows:

"Section 2(h)(a),(b) and (c) omitted.

.(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any-

.(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

.(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"

(Emphasis added)ar

5. It is seen from the records that respondents 4 and 5 made an application seeking for certain details including tariffs being set for the industry as well as the households in Tirruppur fixed by the authority. According to the applicants, prices for industrial supply ranged from Rs.23/- per KL to Rs.45/- per KL. Therefore, they wanted to know why there is disparity in the tariff fixed for water. They also wanted to know several other details. On receipt of the said representation sent by respondents 4 and 5 from Badwani, Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner company informed that they are not a "public authority" under the RTI Act. It was thereafter, respondents 4 and 5 sent a complaint to the Information Commission.

6. In order to maintain their application before the Commission, respondents 4 and 5 informed the Commission that the petitioner company is a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) promoted by Tiruppur Exporters Association (TEA) and Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company (TWIC), which is owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. They along with Infrastructure Leasing and Financial Services (IL&FS) had a joint venture for infrastructure development in Tamil Nadu. Respondents 4 and 5 wanted to know details regarding Tiruppur Water Supply and Sewerage Project (TWS&SP) which is implemented by the petitioner company. Since the said project is being implemented and operated by the petitioner company for supplying water and providing sanitation services both for industries and households in Tiruppur Municipality (presently Corporation) as well as for the nearby towns and villages, in larger public interest, they requested the Company to provide certain basic information regarding the project. They had also contended that major shareholders of the petitioner company included Tamil Nadu Water Investment Company, Life Insurance Corporation of India, General Insurance Corporation of India through its four subsidiary insurance companies. Since the petitioner

company is controlling the water supply in Tiruppur and its project is substantially financed by the Government of Tamil Nadu along with other public sector companies, it is a "public authority", coming under Section 2(h)(d).

7. In response to the query, the petitioner company informed the Commission that the pet