Central Information Commission
Mrk Balasubramaniam vs Department Of Fertilisers on 9 July, 2015
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Club Building (Near Post Office)
Old JNU Campus, New Delhi - 110067
Tel: + 91-11-26101592
File No: CIC/SS/A/2013/002956/KY
CIC/SS/A/2013/002846/KY
Date of decision: 09/07/2015
Relevant Facts emerging from the Appeal:
Appellant(s) : 1. Shri A. Ramanathan
Advocate,
Chamber No.83,
Madurai District Court,
Madurai (TN) - 625020
2. Shri K. Balasubramaniam,
No.162/2, B-2, Sri Sai Enclave,
Redhills Roads North,
Villivakkam, Chennai - 600049
Respondent : The Sr. Manager (Adm.)
Indian Potash Limited,
Ambal Building, 3rd Floor,
727, Anna Salai,
Chennai (T.N) - 600006
The Managing Director,
Indian Potash Limited,
Ambal Building, 3rd Floor,
727, Anna Salai,
Chennai (T.N) - 600006
RTI application filed on : 30/11/2010; 28/05/2013
Company Replied on : 16/12/2010; 18/06/2013
Second Appeal received on : 08/03/2011; 13/08/2013
Information sought:
The Appellant No. 1 vide his RTI application dated 30/11/2010 requested information about the landed cost of Muriate of Potash (a common form of potash - usually termed as 'MOP') imported by the Indian Potash Limited [hereinafter referred to as "IPL"] for the following period: - 01/04/2009 to 31/03/2010 and 01/04/2010 to 31/10/2010.
The Appellant No. 2 vide his RTI Application dated 28/05/2013 sought the following information:
a) M/s K Shanmugam & Co. .. Purchased Qty. of MOP from IPL
East Veli Street during the period Dec 2006 to
Madurai - 625 001 Mar 2009 in MT
1
b) M/s Karthika Agro Centre .. Purchased Qty. of MOP from IPL
15, Main Road, during the period Dec 2006 to
Somanur - 641 608 Mar 2009 in MT
Grounds for the Second Appeal:
No information has been provided.
The following were present.
Appellant: None
Respondent: Sh. Sitna Abraham Chief Manager and Sh. S.K. Khanna, Chief Manager Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The Respondents, the Indian Potash Limited were present for hearing and denied disclosure of information stating that IPL does not fall in conformity with the definition of a "Public Authority". Neither of the Appellants was present but they had sent their written submission dated 09/05/2014 and 28/06/2014 pleading that they may be read as part of their arguments. The sum and substance of the submission of both the Appellants sought to establish that the Respondent company is a public authority.
The Appellants in their written submission have elaborated that the IPL website reveals that it is controlled by the Government of India. IPL was established in the name of Indian Potash Supplying Agency (IPSA) by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry. IPSA was converted into Indian Potash Ltd. and its members included Co-operative Sector and Public Sector Companies. It has been further stated that IPL has to appoint Managing Director with the concurrence of Government of India as stated in regulations of IPL Articles of Associations. It is clear that IPL is controlled by the Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers. Hence, IPL is a Public Authority as defined under Section 2(h) of RTI Act 2005.
After hearing the arguments of the Respondent, the Commission sought clarifications and substantiating facts in support of their contention. The Respondent requested for time to address/rebut the arguments/contention raised by the Appellants.
IPL submitted their rejoinder on 31/07/2014. In their submission, it has been argued that IPL having been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 is not a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. Furthermore, in context of the appointment of its Managing Director with the approval of Central Government, the Respondent has relied on the provisions of the Sections 198, 269 and 309 of the Companies Act, 1956. This was followed by submission of an affidavit dated 12/01/2015 by the Respondent reiterating the contention.
Subsequently, pursuant to the hearing held on 21/04/2015, the Respondent sought permission and time to file another affidavit with better and additional facts. While the basic arguments in the recent affidavit dated 02/05/2015 are mere reiteration of facts from the earlier affidavit dated 12/01/2015, two entities namely Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. (holding 7.87%) and Bihar State Co operative Marketing Union Ltd. (holding 0.42%) have been shown as non public-authority shareholders of the IPL. As a result, the total non Governmental funding in IPL has risen to 62.71% in the tabular representation, from the earlier submission in affidavit dated 12/01/2015 where it stood at 53.76%. The contents of the website of the Respondent, viz. IPL, however, displays that Gujarat State 2 Fertilisers and Chemicals Ltd. falls in the group titled "Public Sector Shareholders of IPL" and holds a sizeable number of shares (1125000), which accounts for 7.87% of the total 20.54% of total public sector shareholding. In addition, the Bihar State Co operative Marketing Union Ltd. [termed briefly as BISCO] website clearly indicates that BISCO falls within the ambit of RTI Act, and thus is a public authority. Both these organisations thus actually contribute to public funding in IPL, as per the IPL website. In fact, in para 2 of the affidavit, the Respondent has stated that "...majority (53.76%) shareholding of the Respondent company are held by institutions in Co operative sector which also do not have any equity of Central/State...", while in the same para, in the tabular representation, the Respondent has accounted for 62.71% as attributable to non public authority-shareholders. Thus the arguments of the Respondent, as made in the recent affidavit dated 02/05/2015 are self contradictory, and show variance with the contents of their own website. It is observed that the submission of Sh. S.K. Khanna, Chief Manager (Admn) of the IPL in his affidavit dated 02/05/2015 are contradictory and inconsistent to even his own earlier submission in affidavit dated 12/01/2015.
In the remaining part of the affidavit the Respondent has placed reliance at length on the decisions in the case/s of Hardicon Ltd., Subhas Chandra Agarwal vs. IFFCO, Thalappalan Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd etc. in support of its arguments that IPL should not be held as a Public authority.
Furthermore, the Respondent in his recent affidavit dated 02/05/2015, unlike his earlier affidavit dated 12/01/2015, has invoked the provision of res judicata stating that the Commission has held the Respondent as "not-a-public authority" vide its letter no. CIC/MA/Misc./2009/740 dated 29/03/2010. The letter referred to originated from the office of the then Joint Secretary (Law) and can at best be termed as an administrative communication bearing no legal validity whatsoever and by no stretch of imagination holds the authority of a reasoned decision of the Commission. The said piece of communication was neither based on any legal finding nor a reasoned decision arrived at by any Information Commissioner, who alone are competent to decide such legal questions. Thus placing reliance on such an administrative communication to invoke the legal provision of res judicata at this stage is not valid.
CORE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED The core issue which arises out of the present appeals before us is whether the Respondent IPL qualifies as a "public authority" within the expression as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act 2005.
Decision:
1. The RTI Act, vide Section 3 thereof vests in all citizens the right to information.
However, the said right of citizens to information, under the Act, is enforceable against the public authorities only and for exercise of which right, the Act creates obligations on the public authorities to maintain, display and dispense information and lays down the mechanism for exercise of such right. Before deciding the core issue at hand, the definition of public authority under the RTI Act needs to be revisited and analysed as stipulated under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
32(h). "Public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self Government established or constituted -
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government.
and includes any -
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;
From a bare reading of the Section above, it is evident that the Respondent in this case does not fall within the Sub clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act to the extent that it is neither a body or institution of self-Government, established or constituted under the Constitution, by law made by the Parliament or by the State Legislature etc. The Respondent Company was created by the then Ministry of Commerce and Industry during the year 1955 and set up a Joint Stock Company by the name of Indian Potash Supply Agency (IPSA) till its conversion in 1970 to its current form viz. Indian Potash Limited and registration under the Companies Act. IPSA, at the commencement consisted of all leading importers of fertilisers as its shareholders and became the sole entrusted agency for import handling, promotion and marketing of Potash in the entire country. The company then evolved and became a limited company and membership base was expanded to include Cooperative Sector Institutions and Public Sector Companies. Evidently the Respondent, IPL has diversified into many sectors of operation, however, its mainstay or prime focus is still agriculture and farming. Being farmer friendly thus remains their USP as also their business motto. The objective of the Government behind the creation of the IPL was to aid the agrarian sector. Till date the IPL is one of the only three agencies of the Government of India for import of urea, the other two being STC and MMTC; and the Respondent is classified as a STE [State Trading Enterprise].
4Together these three STEs are responsible for import of urea on Government account for direct agricultural use. The aim and objective of the Government to render assistance and agricultural support to the farmers in the form of fertilizers etc. is fulfilled by these three STEs viz. State Trading Corporation [STC], Mines and Minerals Trading Corporation [MMTC] and Indian Potash Limited [IPL]. Though the Government imports urea through other private agencies as well, yet the same is on the basis of specific individual agreements of the Government with such private agencies, unlike in the case of the Respondent. Thus it is evident that the objective behind creation of the IPL still remains its core area of operation, viz. rendering support to the agricultural sector in fulfillment of the Government's aims and responsibility towards the development of the agrarian sector.
2. Being a company the issue that needs to be settled is whether the Respondent falls within the purview of Section 2 (h)(d) of the RTI Act which reads as follows:-
i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed,
ii) non - Government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.
3. We must now examine whether the IPL falls within (i) above. Obviously the question which arises is whether the Respondent can be said to be a body controlled by the Government. The records of the case reveal that a large number of members on the Board of Directors of the Respondent company are Government officials. However, simply because of existence of Government officials on the Board of Directors of the Respondent, one cannot automatically deduce that the Company is controlled by the Government and this particular issue has recently discussed and clarified by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Mother Diary Fruit & Veg. Pvt. Ltd. vs. Hatim Ali & Anr [WP No. 3110/2011 dated 02/02/2015] squarely covers, clarifies and establishes the legal position in this respect as:
"...16. The fact that shareholders of a company do not interfere with the day to day functions of the company cannot lead to a conclusion that shareholders do not control the company. In my view, 'managing' a company, cannot be read as synonymous to 'controlling' a company. There is nothing in the language of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Act, which indicates that the appropriate Government must directly control a public authority or such control must be manifested by direct interference with the day-to-day management of the company. If an appropriate Government has the ability to direct the affairs of a body and exercise its dominion over its affairs, the fact that it does so by appointing its representatives as managers of the said body or ensuring that its representatives are so appointed, would not mean that the body is not controlled by the appropriate Government...."5
In this context, the fact that the website of the Company viz. IPL gives credit to the Government of India for structuring its share capital pattern which is acknowledges its allegiance to the Government in no uncertain terms. The company not only accredits the Government of India for structuring its share capital sharing pattern but it is also a fact that IPL has been designed so as to include the Public Sector Fertilizer Companies as its members, to ensure enhanced reliability, accountability and transparency in the functioning of IPL. This is also supported by the fact that the Chairperson of the Respondent company alongwith eight out of sixteen members of the Board of Directors are officers of either Indian Administrative Service or Govt. officials. It is a known fact that no Govt official can hold the post of Chairperson or other Board member of a company as controlling affairs of the company unless the company is a Government company. Thus it is apparent that the Govt exercises its control over the Respondent company through its officials, appointed as Board of Directors of the Respondent company.
4. Now embarking on (ii) above viz: "......non-Government Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.....", the Commission finds it appropriate to peruse the exact position of the Respondent Company regarding the shareholding pattern, as placed on the website of the Respondent. The position as it stands is as follows:
Name of shareholder No. of shares %
Co-Operative Sector
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Co-operative Limited
4860000 33.99
[repatriated and hence outside ambit of RTI]
Gujarat State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited [letter
received from organisation, claiming exemption from 1494000 10.45
RTI]
Andhra Pradesh State Co-op MKTG Federation Ltd
891000 6.23
[comes under RTI]
Tamil Nadu Co-Op Mktg Federation Limited -
TANFED [State Govt is largest shareholder, maintains
A/cs like Public Limited co., funded by long term n short term borrowings/ loans from State/Central Govt.; statutory 480000 3.36 audit by Audit officers of Directorate of Co operative Audit, Finance deptt, State Govt] West Bengal State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited.
-BENFED [The administrative set up is headed by Managing Director, 468000 3.27 who is the Chief Administrative Officer of the organization. A senior officer from Indian Administrative Service deputed to the position of the Managing Director. Two officers from 6 State services occupying the post of General Manager (Administration) and General Manager (Business) of the organization.] Karnataka State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited 432000 3.02 [falls under RTI] National Cooperative Development Corporation 306000 2.14 [falls under RTI] Punjab State Co-Op Supply & MKTG Federation 264000 1.85 Limited [falls under RTI] Orissa State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited [falls under RTI] 216000 1.51 M.P State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited [State Govt. contributes in its share capital, headed by an 192000 1.34 MD who is an IAS officer] Maharastra State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited 180000 1.26 [falls under RTI] Bihar State Co-Op Coal Marketing Society Limited 75000 0.52 Bihar State Co-Op MKTG union Limited 60000 0.42 [falls under RTI] Haryana State Co-op MKTG Federation Limited -
60000 0.42
HAFED [falls under RTI]
Kerala State Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited.
30000 0.21
[falls under RTI]
Shetkari Sahakari Sangh Limited 19500 0.14
Vidarbha Co-Op MKTG Federation Limited [exempt
12000 0.08
from RTI]
Co-operative Sector-Total 10039500 70.22
Total under Govt control/Under RTI [excluding
70.22 --
IFFCO, Guj State Co-Op. Mktg Fed. Ltd & Vidarbha
(33.99+10.45+.08)
Co-Op. Mktg Fed. Ltd]
= 25.77 [A]
The website further reveals:
Public Sector No. of shares %
Madras Fertilisers Limited 792000 5.54
Steel Authority of India Limited 360000 2.52
Rashtriya Chemicals & Fertilisers Limited 336600 2.35
Gujarat State Fertilisers and Chemical Ltd. 1125000 7.87
Fertilisers & Chemicals Travancore Ltd. 324000 2.27
20.54
Public Sector-Total 2937600
[B]
7
Thus it is evident from the above figures as provided by the Respondent themselves on their own website, summation of A and B = 25.7+20.54 = 46.24% which is undisputedly the funds received directly or indirectly from the Government coffers or is public money.
5. The above facts as published on the website of the Respondent corroborate the statement already given by the Respondent in the affidavit dated 12/01/2015 submitted by its Chief Manager (Admn.), Sh. S K Khanna that while IFFCO (33.99%), Gujarat State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (10.45%) and the Vidarbha Co- operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (0.08%) have no Government equity holding, alongwith private sector equity of 9.24%, they constitute 53.76% of the total private equity of IPL. Thus, consequently the funds provided by the appropriate Government, either from its own bag or those of its instrumentalities work out to 46.24% of the total equity of IPL. On this point, it is pertinent to discuss the relevant portion of the decision dated 14/08/2012 in the case of Mangalore SEZ Limited [WP No. 34095/2010] wherein the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court had held the Mangalore SEZ Limited as "public authority" under the RTI Act, 2005 observing as follows:
"5. In the matter on hand, as is clear from Annexure-B, about 50% of holding of the petitioner is from the Government organisations viz., Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited, Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, ONGC Mangalore Petro Chemicals Limited. The number of shares held by these three organisations comes to about 49.96%. Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited though is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, the same is owned by Government of India. Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board is also a State Government Organisation. Since 49.96% holding of the petitioner is by Governmental organisations, having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act, in my considered opinion, the provision of Section 2(h) has to be read to take within its sweep all funds provided by the appropriate Government, either from its own bag or funds which reach the authority through the appropriate Government or with its concurrence or its clearance. Hence, in my view, the petitioner company Mangalore SEZ Limited, Mangalore can be classified as a 'public authority' and non-Government organisation which is substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government......".
The above judgment clarifies that while considering the issue of "substantial financing" in the context of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, all funds provided by the appropriate Government, either from its own bag or funds which reach the authority through the appropriate Government or with its concurrence or its clearance must be taken into the sweep.
86. Arriving at similar conclusion, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment dated 07/10/2013 in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Co operative Bank Ltd. and Others -vs.- State of Kerala has held:
"36. ........A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The expression "substantially financed", as such, has not been defined under the Act. "Substantial" means "in a substantial manner so as to be substantial .......................................................................................... ...................................................................................................... .............................................................................................................. ................................................................................................ ................................................................................................................. ......................................................................................................
37. .........The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'essentially; without material qualification; in the main; in substance; materially.'............................. The word 'substantially' has been defined to mean 'in substance; as a substantial thing or being; essentially, intrinsically.' Therefore the word 'substantial' is not synonymous with 'dominant' or 'majority'. It is closer to 'material' or 'important' or 'of considerable value.' 'Substantially' is closer to 'essentially'.......
38. Merely providing subsidiaries, grants, exemptions, privileges etc., as such, cannot be said to be providing funding to a substantial extent, unless the record shows that the funding was so substantial to the body which practically runs by such funding and but for such funding, it would struggle to exist......."
7. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, it would be seen that the undertaking of the Respondent had been funded, to a significant extent [46.24%], by the Central Government. This cannot be considered as a case where assistance was granted by the Central Government under schemes for betterment of the agriculture sector or as general subsidies, which are available to a specified class of entities. The undertaking of floating the Respondent Company was a special initiative of the Central Government with a view to boost and aid the agriculture and fertiliser industry and it continues to play the role of the prime Government agency in its area of expertise. It is also not the Respondent's case that the assistance granted to promote the company was in terms of any general scheme floated by the Government, leaving no doubt that the Respondent was set up to act as the Government's vehicle to support nation's agriculture and the farming sector as a whole, with complete involvement and support of the Government.
98. The only question, therefore, remains to be decided is whether the indirect shareholding of 46.24% by the Central & State Governments in IPL would constitute substantial funding. On this point, the attention of the Commission is drawn towards a decision passed by the Punjab-Haryana High Court on 25/02/2008 in a case titled DAV College Trust and vs. Director of Public Instruction. The High Court while deciding whether the petitioner is a public authority as defined under the RTI Act, held:
"......... Once a body is substantially financed by the Government, the functions of such body partake the character of public authority'. The definition of expression 'public authority' itself shows that 'public authority' would include any organization body owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the Government or even the non-Government organisation which is substantially financed. The petitioner has claimed that they are getting only 45% grant-in-aid after admitting that initially the grant-in-aid paid to them was to the extent of 95%. If on account of policy of the Government the grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% which was given initially allowing the petitioner to build up its own infrastructure and reducing the grant-in-aid later would not result into an argument that no substantial grant-in-aid is received and therefore it could not be regarded as 'public authority'. Therefore, we do not find any substance in the stance taken by the petitioner that it is not a 'public authority'......"
9. Having discussed the above, it is deemed appropriate to glance over the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs. IFFCO dated 02.03.2015 in the WP (C) No. 6715/2003, relied heavily upon by the Respondents. Perusal of the said decision reveals that the Hon'ble High Court had concurred with the view of CIC that the Central Govt. has no share capital in IFFCO post 2004 nor has the Central Government nominated any Director in the IFFCO's Board of Directors. In the case of IPL, as discussed above, there is atleast 46.24% undisputed Government funding and the Board of Directors running the day to day affairs of the IPL is headed and comprised largely by IAS officers. Hence, the decision passed in the case of IFFCO is clearly not applicable in the case of IPL.
10. Likewise, the decision in the case of Hardicon is also distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand, viz. IPL. Though the Respondent, in its latest affidavit dated 02/05/2015, has placed considerable reliance on the decision passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hardicon Ltd., the Commission, however, is of the opinion that the said decision is distinguishable from the facts of the case at hand, in as much the Hardicon decision focuses and is based on the following ratio:
10"..
16. In this case, there is no material to indicate that any of the funds received by the petitioner owed their source to either the Central Government or the State Government. The constituent shareholders of the petitioner are independent entities and whose source of funds are not limited to the Central Government/State Government. Although, substantial part of equity of nationalized banks is held by the Government, the sources of funds available to the bank are not limited to the Government alone. Banks receives substantial deposits as a part of their business. In addition, the banks also generate substantial income from their commercial activities. Such funds are also deployed by banks by lending and investing in other entries. Since the funds received by the petitioner by way of subscription to its equity cannot be traced to any Government. The conclusion that the Government has indirectly provided substantial finance to the petitioner is not sustainable....."
This is not the case in the matter at hand, since the shareholding of the public sector in the form of either direct or indirect public funding is from the Central and/or State Governments and the constituent organizations are all public authorities. In the case of IPL, the information available on the website of IPL itself clearly indicates that IPL receives indirect Govt funding admittedly to the extent of 46.24% and that IPL is governed by a Board of Directors which is headed and comprised equally by Govt officials, as by private entities. In the absence of any contrary contention/information, the Commission is of the opinion that IPL is substantially financed indirectly by the appropriate Government.
11. In the foregoing decisions in the cases of Mangalore SEZ Ltd. and the DAV College Trust the organisation/s financed by Government resources to the extent of 49% and 45% respectively are held as public authorities by the respective High Courts upon examination of the facts of each case. In the light of the discussions above, evidently the Respondent IPL was substantially financed by Government revenue and managed and controlled completely by the Central Government at the inception stage. Even when IFFCO repatriated Government equity in 2004, current public funding undisputedly continues to be to the extent of 46.24%. In the light of the decision in the case of DAV College Trust as held by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Governmental grant-in-aid to the extent of 95% which had initially allowed the petitioner to build up its own infrastructure, if subsequently reduced on account of policy of the Government and restructuring/expansion of the organisation's finances, cannot lead to an argument that no substantial grant-in-aid was received and therefore it could not be regarded as not a 'public authority'. Applying the same ratio in the instant case, it is clear that the Government funding, whether directly or indirectly in the Respondent Company viz. Indian Potash Limited's shareholding is 'material' or 11 'of considerable value' and the Respondent IPL is thus held as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
12. Let us put the facts of this case, through a last test against the touch stone of the landmark decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ajay Hasia etc. v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors. etc [1981 AIR 487 decided on 13.11.1980] wherein the question whether a body is financially, functionally, administratively dominated, by or under the control of the Government has been discussed. The Constitution Bench judgment wherein P.N. Bhagwati, J. spoke for the Court, laid down the test and summarised them as under:
"......(1) .... if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with Governmental character. (3) It may also be a relevant factor whether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State-conferred or State-protected.
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government. (6) Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference' of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government...."
13. The aforementioned tests when applied against the factual matrix of the instant case of IPL, clearly establish that the highlighted features among the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, predominantly exist in the Respondent company, viz. 1) enjoying a monopoly status which is State conferred, as one of the three STEs for import of Potash; 2) its vision itself being 'To be a credible, consistent and cost effective provider of fertilizers, knowledge and services to the Indian Farmer.' - essentially delivering a function for the benefit of the public, the farmers to be precise and thus taking the character of Government function or "function...of public importance and closely related to Governmental function..".
14. In the light of the foregoing decisions, and discussions above, the Commission holds that the Respondent viz. IPL is a Public Authority and accordingly, the IPL is hereby 12 directed to designate CPIO(s) and Appellate Authority(s) in 06 weeks time. The CPIO(s) so appointed will decide the RTI application/s extracted in this order as per the provisions of the RTI Act within 30 days time. Besides, the IPL is also directed to comply with the provisions of section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act by way of making voluntary disclosures on the subjects mentioned in the said clause.
The matters are disposed of accordingly.
BASANT SETH
Information Commissioner
YASHOVARDHAN AZAD M.A. KHAN YUSUFI
Information Commissioner Information Commissioner
Authenticated true Copy:
Registrar
13