(1.) Is the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Ltd. ("IFCI Ltd.") a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act")? That is the question that arises for consideration in this writ petition, which challenges an order dated 31st May 2007 passed by the Central Information Commission ("CIC"). The CIC answered the question in the affirmative.
(2.) A complaint was made by the Respondent before the CIC stating that the Petitioner IFCI Ltd. had not published particulars on its website nor appointed Central Public Information Officers ("CPIOs") which it was required to do in terms of Section 4, Section 5(1) and 5(2) of the RTI Act respectively, on account of which information available with the IFCI Ltd. concerning the complaints made to it was not able to be accessed. In response to the said complaint, the Petitioner IFCI Ltd. took the stand that it was not a public authority within the meaning of the RTI Act.
(3.) In the appeal before it, the CIC framed two questions: first, whether an institution established under a law, would cease to be a public authority once that law was repealed? And second, whether in this case the shareholding by government can be treated as substantial finance? The first question was answered by holding that IFCI Ltd. was "established" under the Industrial Finance Corporation (Transfer of Undertaking and Repeal) Act, 1993 ("the 1993 Act") which was an Act made by Parliament. In answering the second question, the CIC noted that IFCI Ltd. "admitted in the hearing and in the written submission that the GOI owned/controlled banks/FI equity in IFCI is 23.53% as on 31-3-2007." Further, it clarified that "funds need not be directly provided to constitute substantial finance to a body. In this case it stands admitted that indirect finance of 23.53% exists, which cannot be construed to be insubstantial." Thus, it held IFCI Ltd. to be a public authority within the definition prescribed under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.