9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (5) TMI 640 - HC - Indian LawsRTI - Scope of Public Authority - whether the petitioner institutions would be public authority under the provisions of section 2(h) of the Act? - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the case of CENTRAL PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VERSUS SUBHASH CHANDRA AGARWAL 2019 (11) TMI 895 - SUPREME COURT it is not possible to hold that the petitioners who are substantially financed by the companies owned by the State Government cannot be said to be public authority and as such, the petitioners would be covered by the definition of public authority under section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act 2005. Matters remanded back to the respondent no.1, as the matter is very old and in view of the facts on record, it would not be possible to take a different view than what is held by the respondent no. 2 to apply the provision of section 2(h) of the Act-2005 to consider the petitioners as public authority to apply the provisions of Act-2005 - petition allowed by way of remand.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioners qualify as "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. The applicability of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the definition of "public authority." 3. The substantial financing and control by the State Government over the petitioners. 4. The procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in the impugned order. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Whether the petitioners qualify as "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005: The petitioners challenged the order of the Gujarat State Information Commission that held them to be "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioners argued that they do not qualify as such because they are not owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate Government. The court examined whether the petitioners, GVGL Limited and GVFL Trustee Company Private Limited, fall within the definition of "public authority" as per the Act. 2. The applicability of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the definition of "public authority": The court referred to the Supreme Court's decisions in *Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala* and *D.A.V. College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions*. These judgments clarified that for a body to be considered a "public authority," it must be substantially financed or controlled by the government. The term "substantially financed" means a large portion of funding must come from the government, and "control" must be substantial and not merely supervisory. 3. The substantial financing and control by the State Government over the petitioners: The court found that the petitioners were substantially financed by state-owned companies such as GIIC Limited and GSFC Limited, which have significant equity participation in the petitioners. The court noted that the shareholding pattern and the involvement of state-owned companies in the petitioners' equity capital indicate substantial financing by the State Government. The court also considered the provision in the Articles of Association of petitioner no.1, where the Managing Director of GIIC Limited is an ex-officio chairman, as a form of control by the State Government. 4. The procedural fairness and adherence to natural justice in the impugned order: The petitioners contended that the impugned order suffered from non-application of mind and violation of principles of natural justice, especially concerning petitioner no.2, which was not served any notice. The court, however, found that the order was passed after considering the facts and hearing the parties involved. The court also noted that the legislative intent behind the RTI Act is to promote transparency and accountability, which supports the inclusion of bodies substantially financed by the government within its ambit. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners are "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005, as they are substantially financed by state-owned companies and controlled by the State Government. The court emphasized that the purpose of the RTI Act is to ensure transparency and accountability in bodies that receive substantial government funding. The interim relief was vacated, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
|
