9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (8) TMI 464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... indirectly, by the government, come within the purview of the RTI Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act which necessitates a construction which will hopefully cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive effect of corruption and infuse transparency in its activities. - Held that the appellant is a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act - learned Judge of the writ Court came to a correct conclusion - 811 of 2008 and 1 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 5-8-2008 - A.K. Ganguly C.J. and F.M. Ibrahim Kalifulla, J. S/Shri R. Muthukumarasamy, Sr. Counsel for V. Ramajegadeesan, for the Appellant. S/Shri G. Rajagopalan, Sr. Counsel for M/s. S.R. Associates and Ms. D. Nagasila, for the Respondent. [Judgment per: A.K. Ganguly, C.J.]. - 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 21-5-2008, whereby the State Commission, the first respondent herein, held that the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... propriate 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., 28-7-2008, 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 Associati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Chairman Managing Director/TIDCO Director Mr. K.R. Viswanathan, Director (Projects)/TIDCO Director Mr. Hari Sankaran, Managing Director/IL FS Director Mr. Pradeep Puri President CEO/NTBCL Director Mr. K. Ramchand President CEO/IL FS Transportation Networks Limited Director Mr. N.R. Krishnan. IAS (Retd.) Former Secretary/Government of India Director 7. It is clear from the aforesaid composition that the Chairman is the Secretary to the Government of Tamil Nadu, and out of the seven Directors two are from Indian Administrative Service and three are nominated by TIDCO, which is a Corporation wholly owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu. There is one Managing Director nominated by IL FS. There is another Director also nominated by IL FS. There is only one Director viz., Mr. Pradeep Puri, who is not nominated by either IL FS or TIDCO, and Mr. N.R. Krishnan, is also a retired IAS and a former Secretary to Government of India. 8. The aforesaid composition of the Board of Directors of the appellant-company makes it clear that the appellant-company is a body which is controlled by the appropriate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken up as Phase-II separately. 5. The Government have also decided to constitute an Empowered Committee to monitor and take appropriate decisions for the implementation of this project. Orders constituting an Empowered Committee are being issued separately. 6. The CEO, TNRDC is requested to take speedy action at every stage to implement the project early. 7. This order issues with the concurrence of Finance Department vide its U.O. No. 23/ss(LK)/04, dated 23-1-2004.' 11. It also appears from page-1 of the typed set that the Government of Tamil Nadu, Highways Department issued G.O.Ms. No. 81 dated 24-4-2003 in this regard. The text of the said G.O. is set out below:- 'ORDER:- The Government have taken a policy decision to improve the road from Madhya Kailash in Sardar Patel Road to Siruseri in Old Mahabalipuram Road. They accordingly direct that special purpose vehicle be formed to improve the road from Madhya Kailash to Siruseri as a world class 6 lane road by mobilizing resources fro the project and to maintain the road thereafter. 2. The Chief Executive Officer, Tamil Nadu Road Development Company is requested to send necessary proposal to Government in this regar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CC 607. At paragraph-13 pages 614 and 615 of the report, the learned Judges held as follows :- "..The definition of premises in Section 2(c) uses the word 'includes' at two places. It is well settled that the word 'include' is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include. (See Dadji v. Sukhdeobabu, (1980) 1 SCC 621; Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd., (1987) 1 SCC 424; and Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P. (1989) 1 SCC 164." 16. Therefore, obviously the definition of bodies referred to in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act would receive a liberal interpretation, and here the words which fall for interpretation are the words 'controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government'. 17. We are here concerned with the interpretation of the definition clause i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... countries. It is very necessary that the ordinary person is enabled to participate in the processes that affect daily life and he has empowered with the information to play an effective role in policy-making and legislative decision-making. To promote broader political participation, there should be accountability and transparency of government, to prevent the criminalisation of policy, there should be free flow of information. These are the reasons why the Act came into force. The Government should have the will to make the shift from being niggardly in providing access to information. Transparency is essential for a healthy democracy and robust economy'. This Court is in respectful agreement with the aforesaid opinion expressed by the learned Judge. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.K. Bindal and another v. Union of India, (2003) 5 SCC 163. That was a decision as to what would mean a government company. On the legal position of a government company, it was held in that decision that the government company cannot be identified with the government itself nor its employees are government servants, and such employees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to further the purpose of the Act. So any interpretation which frustrates the purpose of RTI Act must be eschewed. Following the said well known canon of construction, this Court interprets the expression 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d)(i) liberally, so that the authorities like the appellant who are controlled and substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the government, come within the purview of the RTI Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act which necessitates a construction which will hopefully cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive effect of corruption and infuse transparency in its activities. In this context, a few lines from Joseph Pulitzer, in a slightly different context, will be very apt and are reproduced hereunder. 'There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle which does not live by secrecy. Get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away.' 24. This Court, therefore, holds that the appellant is a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
