JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying this Court to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records of the impugned summons issued by the first respondent herein vide proceedings in Case No. SA.3624/SCIC/2020 dated 02.08.2021 and quash the same as illegal and for other reliefs.)

1. The central issue that arises for consideration in this case is whether the Victoria Edward Hall Society (in short, "Victoria Society") is a public authority under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the RTI Act). Ancillary issues relating to whether information may be called for under the RTI Act even from a private body and whether the impugned summons is actuated by malice also arise. Besides, an issue of non-joinder was raised.

2. The narrative begins from 1911 when G.O.Ms.No.254, Revenue Department, dated 27.01.1911 (G.O.Ms.No.254) was issued. By G.O.Ms.No. 254, land of an extent of 72 cents was granted to the Victoria Society. The said Government Order also adverts to the sale of 1.11 acres with exemption from ground rent. G.O.Ms.No.254 is subject to conditions. The first condition is that the whole extent of 1.83 acres of land (72 cents + 1.11 acres) shall be used for the construction of a town hall, museum and library. The second condition is that if the land is not used for the purpose for which it was granted or at all, the Government is entitled to resume 72 cents and impose the full ground rent as regards 1.11 acres. The 1.11 acres of land was sold subsequently to the Victoria Society by sale deed dated 26.03.2012. This sale deed also is subject to the conditions set forth in G.O.Ms.No.254, but is for a consideration of Rs.7,000/-. The said sale does not appear to be subject to resumption by the State.

3. The salience of the above mentioned facts would become evident only upon entering into the heart of the controversy. The petitioner received a summons dated 02.08.2021, which has been issued by the Assistant Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission. Such summons was issued by exercising powers under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act. By such summons, the petitioner was summoned to appear before the Commission at 10.30 AM on 12.08.2021 to provide information relating to the list of members of the Victoria Society from 2014-15 to 2018-19; the list of members whose names have been deleted from the membership of the Victoria Society in the last twenty years; and the bylaws including all amendments with regard to the Victoria Society.

4. Upon receipt of such summons, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Information Commission to summon him for an inquiry under the RTI Act. The principal contention, in such regard, is that the Victoria Society is not a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. As indicated earlier, the petitioner also contends that the issuance of summons is actuated by malice inasmuch as the petitioner lodged a complaint against the second respondent, who presently functions as the Chief Information Commissioner, to the Minorities Commission. The petitioner asserts that such complaint before the Minorities Commission was taken on file and an inquiry in relation thereto had been instituted. By drawing reference to the sequence of dates and events, the petitioner contends that he was summoned under the impugned summons only after the inquiry by the Minorities Commission commenced. Prior thereto, it is stated that the RTI proceedings were confined to the public authorities under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975.

5. In response, the Information Commission and State contend that the Victoria Society qualifies as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act because it is substantially funded by the State. For such purpose, the State relies heavily upon G.O.Ms.No.254 as also the sale deed executed in favour of the Victoria Society. With regard to the allegation of malice, the Informati