Public authorities are defined by substantial financing from the government, directly or indirectly, affecting their operational capacity, regardless of whether this financing exceeds 50%.

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner has challenged an order dated 27.12.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 in Appeal No.KIC/2395APL/2014, by which, it was directed to furnish information sought by the respondent No.4.

2. The petitioner contends that it is a Co-operative Society registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Act, 1959’ for short). One of its objectives is to assist its members in the activities of establishing a plant nursery by promoting them to raise plants and seeds and to sell them through it. The petitioner contends that it is run from the share capital collected from its members and as per its bye-laws. The petitioner contends that the State Government passed on a notification dated 18.02.1991 executing lease of its property for a period of 25 years at the rate of Rs.2,500/- per acre. It contends that the period of lease has expired and now a proposal is sent for renewal.

3. The petitioner contends that it was assisted by the Central Government under the National Horticultural Mission Scheme (henceforth referred to as 'NHM' for short) with a grant of Rs.60,00,000/- sanctioned in 2006-07. The society had also sanctioned a loan of Rs.19,25,000/- and partially recovered Rs.12,29,674/- in the year 2015-16 and for the year 2016-17 it had sanctioned loan of Rs.29,75,000/- and partially recovered Rs.20,51,951/-. It claims that it had earned a net profit of Rs.50,65,934/- in the year 2015-16 and Rs.1,46,86,925-05/- from its business in the year 2016-17.

4. The petitioner contends that respondent No.04 submitted an application on 21.11.2013 seeking copies and details of the orders obtained/received by the petitioner from the State and Central Government in the last five years.

5. After receipt of the application, it replied on 27.12.2014 that it was not a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h)(ii) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (henceforth referred to as 'the Act, 2005' for short). It also claimed that the it did not receive any financial assistance from the State Government. It also contended that it was running its business on land leased by the State Government for which rent was collected.

6. The respondent No.2 noting the contention of the petitioner rejected the application filed by the respondent No.4. The respondent No.4 then filed an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the respondent No.3. The petitioner appeared and submitted its objections, reiterating its contention that it was not a public authority and that the State Government was collecting rent for the land leased to it. It also contended that as per the audit report for 2016-17, the assets of the petitioner showed NHM subsidy as an asset. It was also informed that a representative of the State Government working as Additional Director, Horticultural Department was one of the members of the management of the petitioner society and he was acting as the president of the society at that point in time.

7. The respondent No.1 allegedly, without taking into consideration the contentions urged, allowed the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 and directed the respondent No.2 to furnish information in terms of an order dated 27.12.2017. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this Court.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is not a public authority as it is no