ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned proceedings of the Central Information Commissioner, dated 12.10.2010, whereby the petitioner was brought within the scope of Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act and was directed to provide the information as requested by the first respondent.

2.The case of the petitioner is that they are an independent and private social organization who are working towards the development and beautification of Yanam town. The further case of the petitioner is that they are partially funded by the Government and for the year 2005-2006 they received 31.76% of funding from the Government, for the year 2006-2007 they received 33.28%, for the year 2007-2008 they received 26.72 % of funding and for the year 2008-2009, they received 38.67% only. Thus, the petitioner claimed that they are not substantially controlled or financed by the Government.

3.The grievance of the petitioner is that the first respondent who was then a sitting M.L.A submitted an application on 06.01.2009 and sought for certain details from the petitioner. The petitioner made it clear that they will not come within the scope of a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Aggrieved by the same, the first respondent preferred a complaint before the Central Information Commission and the Central Information Commission through the impugned proceedings dated 12.10.2010, held that the petitioner comes within the purview of a public authority and hence directed the petitioner to provide the information sought for by the first respondent. Aggrieved by the same, the present Writ Petition has been filed before this Court.

4.Heard Mr.M.Ravi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mrs.V.Usha, the learned Additional Government Pleader for second and third respondents.

5.The short question that arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the petitioner can be brought within the definition of a “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Act. The Central Information Commission while passing the impugned order, had taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner was funded by the Government only within the range of 26%-38% during the period 2005-2006 to 2008 to 2009 and inspite of the same, the Central Information Commissioner came to a conclusion that the petitioner is involved in activities which are public in nature and they are also funded by the Government and hence came to a conclusion that the petitioner is a public authority.

6.The Apex Court had an occasion to deal with the scope of a non-

Governmental organization and considered whether they can be brought within the definition of “Public Authority” under Section 2 (h) (d) (i) or (ii) in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others reported in [ (2013) 16 Supreme Court Cases 82 ]. For proper appreciation the relevant portions in the judgment are extracted hereunder:-

Body Controlled by the Appropriate Government

36.A body which is controlled by the appropriate government can fall under the definition of public authority under Section 2h(d)(i).

37.Let us examine the meaning of the expression “controlled”

in the context of RTI Act and not in the context of the expression “controlled” judicially interpreted while examining the scope of the expression “State” under Article 12 of the Constitution or in the context of maintainability of a writ against a body or authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The word “control” or “controlled” has not been defined in the RTI Act, and hence, we have to understand the scope of the expression ‘controlled’ in the context of the words which exist prior and subsequent i.e. “body owned” and “substantially financed” respectively.

38.The meaning of the word “control” has come up for consideration in several cases before this Court in different contexts. In State of Wes