IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.1990 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 13714/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: V.S. LEE, PRINCIPAL, S.N.COLLEGE SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHEMPAZHANTHY, REPRESENTED BY PRESENT PRINCIPAL MOHAN SREEKUMAR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SMT.SUNITHA VINOD SRI.GOPALAKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.2010/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2010 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6774/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR. SUMA NARAYAN, PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE FOR WOMEN, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERISTY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2011 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9507/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR. N.VISWA RAJAN, PRINCIPAL T.K.M. COLLEGE, NANGIARKULANGARA,NOW REPRESENTED BY NEW PRINCIPAL, DR.JAYAPRAKASH. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2012 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9592/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR. K.N.KAMALASANAN, PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, NATTIKA. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT UNIVERISTY BUILDING, CALICUT. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10- 2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 5 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2013 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 12730/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR. K.S. ANITHA, PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA TRAINING COLLEGE, NEDUNGANDA. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 6 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2026 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9595/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: K.P.MOHANAN, PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, KANNUR,NOW REPRESENTED BY NEW PRINCIPAL SALIM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF KANNUR UNIVERSITY BUILDING, KANNUR. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10- 2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 7 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2027 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 9548/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR.C.VISWANATHAN, PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE,, ALATHOOR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR, UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY BUILDING, CALICUT. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10- 2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 8 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2029 OF 2007 AGAINST THEJUDGMENT IN WPC 12244/2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: B.VIJAYA BABU LECTURER IN CHARGE OF PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, SHIVAGIRI, NOW REPRESENTED BY NEW PRINCIPAL LEE. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10- 2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 9 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2030 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6667/2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR.G.MOHAN SREEKUMAR, PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHENGANOOR, NOW REPRESENTED BY NEW PRINCIPAL, DR.UNNIKRISHNAN. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10- 2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2080 OF 2007 AGAINST THEJUDGMENT IN WPC 9594/2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:: K.M.SUPRABHA,PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, SHORNUR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SMT.SUNITHA VINOD SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR , UNIVERSITY OF CALICUT UNIVERSITY BUILDING, CALICUT. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2091 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 6714/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER: DR.S.V.SUDHEER,PRINCIPAL SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, KOLLAM. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, UNIVERSITY BUILDING,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 12 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.2108 OF 2007 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 4933/2007 DATED 04-07-2007 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANT/PETITIONER:: DR.JEEVAN LAL,PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL, SREE NARAYANA COLLEGE, CHERTHALA, REPRESENTED BY NEW PRINCIPAL, K.P.MOHANAN. BY ADVS. SRI.A.N.RAJAN BABU SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNAN (MVA) SMT.K.SUNITHA VINOD RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT: 1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNAN ROAD,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3 THE REGISTRAR UNIVERSITY OF KERALA UNIVERSITY BUILDING, TRIVANDRUM. SRI. ARAVIND KUMAR BABU, SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R1, SRI.M.AJAY, STANDING COUNSEL FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 13 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2020 / 6TH KARTHIKA, 1942 WA.No.1857 OF 2011 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WPC 24324/2011 DATED 28-09-2011 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN W.P.: 1 MAR DIONYSIUS COLLEGE, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR – 680 542 2 PRINCIPAL,MAR DIONYSIUS COLLEGE, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR – 680 542 3 P.C.CHERIANKUNJU,MAR DIONYSIUS COLLEGE, PAZHANJI, THRISSUR – 680 542 BY ADVS. SRI.BABY ISSAC ILLICKAL SRI.ISAAC KURUVILLA ILLIKAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN W.P.: 1 THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2 THE STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, DIRECTORATE OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 01 3 SRI.C.B.SUBHASH ADVOCATE AYYANTHOLE THRISSUR - 3 4 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22-10-2020, ALONG WITH WA.1990/2007 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON 28-10-2020 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 14 JUDGMENT SHAJI P. CHALY,J These appeals are preferred by the writ petitioners challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.4668/2007 and other connected cases dated 4.7.2007 except W.A No.1857/2011, which arises from the judgment in W.P.(C) No.24324/2011 dated 26.9.2011, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions holding that the appellants are not entitled to get any relief being a public authority under the Right to information Act 2005 and liable to provide information in terms of the provisions of the Act, 2005. 2. The common judgement of the learned Single Judge was in fact upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Lee V.S. and Others v. State of Kerala and Others [2010(1)KLT 691]. Being aggrieved, it was taken up in appeal by the appellants before the Apex Court and Apex Court as per the judgment in D.A.V College Trust and Management Society and Others v. Director of Public Instructions and others [2019(4)KHC 840] considered the question with respect to the applicability of Act, 2005 vis-a-vis aided colleges along with other civil appeals and found that if substantial financing either direct or indirect is done by the State Government to the aided institutions, the institution would be bound by the provisions of Act, 2005. However, the apex court remanded the cases pertaining to the above appeals W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 15 in order to identify as to whether the institutions are substantially financed by the State Government or not since there was no evidence available before the court. It is accordingly that these appeals came up before us for consideration. Since the appeals are of common nature, we heard them together and disposed of by a common judgment. 3. According to the appellants, the private aided colleges are not a State within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution of India and therefore, it is not an instrumentality of the State Government. It is also submitted that a private college is not an authority or body constituted by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government or it is not a body owned, controlled or substantially financed or which is constituted by notification or order of Government and hence it is not a public authority. 4. Afore contentions were raised before this Court and before the Apex Court. However, the Apex Court found that section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 deals with six different categories and two additional categories are mentioned in sub-clauses 1 & 2 and any interpretation otherwise than as intended under the Act to the term 'public authority' would be redundant because an NGO and other bodies could never be covered. It was also found that by specifically bringing NGOs it is obvious that the intention of the Parliament was to include those two categories in addition to the four categories mentioned in clauses (a) to (d). Therefore, it was held that an NGO substantially financed directly or indirectly, by funds provided by the W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 16 appropriate Government, would be a public authority amenable to the provisions of the Act. 5. The issue with respect to the aided colleges were also considered and it was held that if the colleges are substantially financed directly or indirectly by the State Government and the very establishment of such an institution, if it is dependent on the largesse of the State in getting land at a cheap price, would mean that it is substantially financed. It was also held that, merely because financial contribution of the State comes down during the actual funding, will not by itself mean that the indirect finance given is not to be taken into consideration. Apart from being holding that, the value of the land will have to be evaluated not only on the date of allotment but even on the date when the question arises as to whether the said body or NGO is substantially financed. After holding so it was held as follows in paragraph 27 to 29,: 27.Whether an NGO or body is substantially financed by the Government is a question of fact which has to be determined on the facts of each case. There may be cases where the finance is more than 50% but still may not be called substantially financed. Supposing a small NGO which has a total capital of Rs.10,000/-gets a grant of Rs.5,000/- from the Government, though this grant may be 50%, it cannot be termed to be a substantial contribution. On the other hand, if a body or an NGO gets hundreds of rupees as grant but that amount is less than 50%, the same can still be termed to be substantially financed. 28. Another aspect of determining substantial finance is whether the body, authority or NGO can carry on its activities effectively without getting W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 17 finance from the Government. If its functioning is dependent on the finances of the Government then there can be no manner of doubt that it has to be termed as substantially financed. 29. While interpreting the provisions of the Act and while deciding what is substantial finance one has to keep in mind the provisions of the Act. This Act was enacted with the purpose of bringing transparency in public dealings and probity in public life. If NGOs or other bodies get substantial finance from the Government, we find no reason why any citizen cannot ask for information to find out whether his / her money which has been given to an NGO or any other body is being used for the requisite purpose or not.” 6. After finding so, individual cases of other States were considered, also and taking into account the factual situations, it was held that if the colleges receiving grants/aid or payment of salary to the staff of the institutions, they are substantially aided and therefore, liable to comply with the provisions of the Act, 2005. Therefore, the issue with respect to the “substantially financing” was considered by the Apex Court of various aided colleges in the Union Territory of Chandigarh for the academic years 2013-2014 to 2015-2016 and finally found that the amounts paid by the State Government to the colleges of Chandigarh ranging from Rs.3,97,39,280/- to Rs.17,57,90,476/- would be substantial payments and amount to almost half the expenditure of the college/school and more than 95% of the expenditure as far as the teaching and other staff is concerned. But in respect of the colleges in these appeals there were no facts and figures for adjudication. In that view of the matter, it W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 18 is explicit, unambiguous and evident that the issue was set at naught by the Apex Court by explaining the substantial amounts expended by the Government in the aided college/school sector in effect defining the term substantial financing as is contained under section 2(h)(i) &(ii) of Act, 2005. 7. So the sole question that is left for our consideration is whether the appellants are substantially financed by the State Government ? Accordingly when the appeals were placed before us, we directed the Government Pleader to produce necessary details with respect to the aid given by the State Government to the institutions in the appeal. Thereupon, as per a memo dated 12.10.2020 the details furnished by the Director of Collegiate Education dated 1.10.2020 is produced before us, which read thus: “ K1/29205/2020/Coll.Edn. Office of the Director of Collegiate Education Vikas Bhavan, Thiruvananthapuram. Dated – 01.10.2020 Phone -(471 2303107, To The Advocate General Ernakulam. Sir, Sub:- Collegiate Education Department -WA No.1990/2007 and other connected WA's: Aided Colleges under the purview of RTI - reg. Ref:- Message dtd: 29.09.2020 from Sri. Aravindakumar Babu, Senior Government Pleader. ****************** Please refer to the above , The entire salary component in respect of Aided College Staff are W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 19 given by the Government. The amount of salary related to Colleges under mention for the year 2019 are given below. 1. S.N.College, Chempazhanthy Teaching Staff : 73784400 Non- Teaching Staff :5342160 2. T.K.M.M.College, Nangiarkulangara Teaching Staff : 28648560 Non-Teaching Staff : 7417440 3. S.N.College, Kollam, Teaching Staff : 94320912 Non-Teaching Staff : 12951720 4. S.N. College for Women, Kollam Teaching Staff : 66476436 Non-Teaching Staff : 6794544 5. S.N.College, Varkala Teaching Staff : 46895868 Non-Teaching Staff : 5522640 6. S.N.College, Shornur Teaching Staff : 15104868 Non-Teaching Staff : 1427640 7. M.D.College, Pazhanji Teaching Staff : 21596772 Non-Teaching Staff : 2306160 8. S.N.College, Alathur Teaching Staff : 25609260 Non-Teaching Staff : 3389640 9. S.N.College, Nattika Teaching Staff :61400616 Non-Teaching Staff : 4787832 10. S.N. College, Cherthala Teaching Staff : 49791252 Non-Teaching Staff :9552480 11. S.N. Training College, Nedungandam Teaching Staff : 9031740 Non-Teaching Staff : 421488 W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 20 12. S.N.College, Chengannur Teaching Staff : 17143152 Non-Teaching Staff : 3665760 In addition to the above the pensionary benefits of these Aided College staff are distributed by the Government through the Treasuries. The State Government are releasing financial assistance to students of Aided Colleges for better educational facilities. The grant received by the colleges under mention for 2019 is given below. 1. S.N.College, Chempazhanthy Rs.2,44,600/- 2. S.N. College for Women, Kollam Rs.2,44,600/- 3. TKMM College, Nangiarkulangara Rs.2,44,600/- 4. S.N.College, Nattika Rs.2,44,600/- 5. S.N.College, Nedumkandam' Nil 6. S.N.College, Alathur Rs.2,44,600/ 7. S.N.College, Varkala Rs.2,44,600/ 8. S.N. College, Chengannur Rs.2,44,600/ 9. S.N.College, Shornur Rs.2,44,600/ 10. S.N.College, Kollam Rs. 2,44,600/ 11.S.N.College, Cherthala Rs.2,44,600/ W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 21 12. M.O.College, Pazhanji Nil It is further submitted that the UGC is releasing huge funds for individual colleges, for developmental activities, for infrastructure development of colleges, and for major or minor research projects. The fund is released directly to college principals, after verifying their proposals. Such details are available in colleges only.” 8. On an analysis of the facts and figures given above, it can be seen that substantial amounts are paid by the State Government to the aided colleges towards the salary of teaching and non-teaching staff apart from the pensionary benefits given to the teaching and non-teaching staff. However, learned counsel for appellants submitted that the aided institutions are spending huge amounts for maintenance of their properties, which exceeds the aid granted by the State Government. It was also pointed out that the Apex Court had observed that if the valuation of the land of the aided colleges are substantial in nature, and exceeding the aid given by the State Government, then the institutions would not come under the provisions of Act, 2005. However, the said contention has no force at all because the observation in respect of the land was made by the Apex Court in the matter of indirect financing made by the Government by providing land at cheaper rates to the institutions. The said observation can never be termed enabling the aided institutions to evaluate the circumstances taking into account the assets held by them and the aid extended by the State Government. It is also pointed out that some of the aided institutions are conducting courses in the self financing W.A.NO.1990 OF 2007 & con.cases. 22 sector also and therefore taking into account the expenditure of such institutions, the aid provided by the State Government would be minuscule. 9. We have heard Sri.A.N.RajanBabu & Sri.Isaac Kuruvila for the appellants, learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Aravind Kumar Babu for the State and its Officials, Sri.M.Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for State Information Commissioner and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 10. The facts narrated above would make it clear that the Apex Court in the judgment in DAV College Trust and Management Society (supra) has interpreted the term, “substantially financed”, contained under section 2(h)(i) and (ii) and has arrived at the finding that if salary of the staff, both teaching and non-teaching are paid by the State Government, then it would be substantially financed. In Shree Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Visvanatha Sastri [AIR 1955 SC 13], the word “substantial” was considered and held as follows in paragraph 13: “13........It was argued in 'Mohta's case (A)' as well as in these Petitions that the classification made in Section 5(1) of the impugned Act was bad because the word “substantial” used therein was a word which had no fixed meaning and was an unsatisfactory medium for carrying the idea of some ascertainable proportion of the whole, and thus the classification being vague and uncertain, did not save the enactment from the mischief of Article 14 of the Constitution. This alleged defect stands cured in the amended Section 34 inasmuch as the legislature has clearly indicated in the statute what it means when it says that the object of the Act is to catch persons who