The main legal point established is that the interpretation of the term 'public authority' under the RTI Act should be purposive and broad, considering the control and substantial financing by the government, to promote transparency and accountability.

This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 17th July, 2008 passed by a learned Judge of the writ Court, whereby the learned Judge was pleased to dismiss the writ petition and inter alia upheld the order passed by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission dated 21.05.2008, whereby the State Commission, the first respondent herein, held that the appellant is a ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as the “RTI Act”) and directed the appellant to furnish the required information to the second respondent.

2. The material facts of the case which are not disputed are that the second respondent in her letter dated 210. 2007 requested the appellant to furnish the following details.

(i)Who are the contractors for constructing the IT corridor?

(ii)Copies of contract agreements with the contractors constructing the IT corridor?

(iii)Copies of documents published by TNRDC or other consultants about the IT corridor?

The appellant refused to furnish those details. The main ground of objection on which the matter was argued before us is that the appellant is not covered under the RTI Act, inasmuch as it is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Section 2(h) of the RTI Act defines a public authority as follows:-

“2(h). “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted –

(a)by or under the Constitution;

(b)by any other law made by Parliament;

(c)by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d)by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government,

and includes any –

(i)body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii)non-government organization substantially financed,

directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.”

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the first respondent dated 21.05.2008 which held that the appellant is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is erroneous and the learned writ court by affirming the said decision committed an error of law. The said error should be corrected by this appeal Court. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted by referring to the definition under Section 2

(h) that the appellant is not established or constituted under the Constitution, by any law of the Parliament or any State Legislature, nor by any notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government. He also submitted that the appellant couldn’t be included within the definition of a body owned, controlled or substantially financed, or a non-Government organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant is a limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act in the year 1998 and was jointly promoted by the Tamil Nadu Industries Development Corporation (TIDCO), which is a public sector undertaking, wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, and M/s.Infrastructure Leasing and Finance Services Limited (IL&FS), which is a non-Government investment company. Thus, both TIDCO and IL&FS have equal stakes in the appellant company having 50% shares. Therefore, it would not fall within the ambit of a public authority under the provisions of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

4. When the matter was heard on the first day viz., 28.07.2008, this Court adjourned it to the next day and directed learned counsel for the appellant to file the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the appellant company.

5. Pursuant to such direction, the Memorandum and Articles of Association were filed before this Court. From a perusal of the said Memorandum it appears that the appellant company was incorporation on 28th May, 1998 under the Companies Act as a Public Limited Company, and thereafter, its Memorandum of Association was amended in 1999, as a result the Articles