Public authority status under RTI Act involves factual adjudication requiring determination by the Information Commission.

The petitioners—three electricity distribution companies (discoms) and Indraprastha Gas Ltd. (IGL)—challenged orders passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) declaring them "public authorities" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act)

The discoms were formed following the restructuring of the Delhi Vidyut Board under the Delhi Electricity Reform Act, 2000, with the Government of NCT of Delhi (GNCTD) retaining 49% equity and private entities holding 51% along with management control

Regarding IGL, GNCTD holds only 5% equity, while GAIL and BPCL hold 22.5% each

The petitioners argued they are private, for-profit entities whose day-to-day management is not controlled by the GNCTD

Conversely, the respondents contended that the petitioners perform public functions and received substantial indirect financing through the transfer of assets at nominal rates

The court primarily applied Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which defines "public authority" to include bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the appropriate government

It relied on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, which clarified that "control" must be substantial and "financing" must be so significant that the body practically runs on those funds

The court also referred to DAV College Trust and Management Society v. Director of Public Instructions, noting that "substantial financing" can be direct or indirect, such as land provided at a heavy discount

Furthermore, it applied the principle from Rajendra Diwan v. Pradeep Kumar Ranibala, establishing that High Courts under Article 226 should not re-assess evidence or act as an alternative appellate forum when the primary adjudicatory body (the CIC) is vested with fact-finding powers

The court observed that determining whether an entity is a "public authority" is a mixed question of law and fact

It noted that under Section 18(3) of the RTI Act, the CIC is vested with the powers of a Civil Court for the appreciation of evidence, whereas the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited and does not extend to the re-appreciation of materials on record

The court highlighted that several other High Courts, including the Karnataka High Court, had relegated similar disputes back to the CIC for fresh disposal in light of the evolving jurisprudence established by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam

The court reasoned that since the impugned orders were passed when the legal landscape was res integra, the CIC must now reconsider the facts—such as the nature of management control and the extent of financing—against the specific legal benchmarks recently clarified by the higher judiciary

The court set aside the impugned CIC orders and remanded the matters to the CIC for fresh reconsideration

The CIC was directed to decide the appeals expeditiously, preferably within six months, after affording a hearing to all concerned parties, including the intervenor employees' unions

All rights and contentions of the parties were left open for the fresh proceedings