Cochin International Airport Ltd A 'Public Authority' Under RTI Act : Kerala High Court

Dismissing the writ appeals preferred by CIAL challenging the decision of the Single Bench, the Division Bench comprising Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. observed as below:

“…all the limbs of being a 'public authority' are duly satisfied and we must hold that CIAL is a 'public authority' amenable to disseminate information under the provisions and rigours of RTI Act… it is therefore held that CIAL is a 'public authority' under Sec. 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act. The view taken by SIC in the impugned order dated 20.06.2019 is affirmed, holding that CIAL is bound to divulge necessary information and meet the statutory obligations placed upon its shoulders vide the various provisions of the RTI Act, including the appointment of PIO and divulging of necessary information in the said regard. We fix a timeline of 15 days for CIAL to take all necessary steps for being completely RTI compliant under various provisions of the RTI Act, especially so specified under Chapter II (Right to Information and Obligations of Public Authorities) of the RTI Act and file a compliance report before this Court.”

The Court also imposed a cost of Rupees one lakh on CIAL for filing the writ appeals without proper authority. It found that the appeals were filed by the Managing Director without the permission of the Board of Directors. 

Finding

The Division Bench considered three main issues:

“ I. Whether CIAL owes its existence to a notification issued or order made by the 'appropriate government', thus satisfying the first leg for the applicability of Sec. 2(h)(d)(i);

II. Whether CIAL can be treated as a body/entity 'owned' or/ and 'controlled' by the appropriate government, in a manner to treat it as an authority answerable to the public at large and third parties under the RTI Act;

III. Whether CIAL can be treated as an organisation/ entity 'substantially financed' by the appropriate government, possessing a direct/ indirect financial and administrative control of agencies of the State government.”

CIAL established by order made by government

The Court looked into the process by which the predecessor of CIAL, KIAS (Kochi International Airport Society) came into existence and found that KIAS was constituted through a government order by the erstwhile District Collector of Ernakulam.

It observed:

“Had KIAS not been there, clearly the question of constitution of CIAL would have never arisen and therefore it can safely be recorded that KIAS and resultantly CIAL both came into existence by virtue of a specific order, bearing G.O. (Ms) No. 42/93/PW&T dated 19.05.1993 issued by the Collector in this regard. It is this G.O. (Ms) No. 42/93/PW&T dated 19.05.1993 that had set the stage formally for establishment and commissioning of the airport at Cochin. Clearly, therefore the first limb of Sec. 2(h)(d)(i) stands satisfied in the present case of CIAL being established by an order made by the appropriate government.”

It also noted that the land acquisition for the airport was done by the government of Kerala in the name of KIAS. The land was thereafter, transferred to CIAL and thus, the Court remarked that the entire asset and land base of CIAL was consolidated at the instance of the government.

It further observed:

"Therefore, it is beyond any pale of doubt that public funding and resources of the State exchequer were always treated as cardinal and centripetal to the sustenance, maintenance and operation of CIAL."

Government of Kerala exercises authoritative dominance over CIAL

The Court looked in detail into the Memorandum of Association and Articles of Association of CIAL as well as the constitution of the Board of Directors (BoD) of the company.

It noted that 6 of the 11 directors of the BoD are ex-officio government nominees, including the Chief Minister and other ministers, and therefore, the government has control over the affairs and management of CIAL.

It observed:

“The presence of Chief Minister and other Cabinet Ministers in the BOD practically has the consequential psychological effect of all other private Directors yielding to the opinion, view and expression of authority to the head of the government. It cannot be gainsaid that opinion or proposal of the Chief Minister and other Cabinet Ministers presiding over the meeting of BOD of CIAL can be overridden by other private Directors on board of CIAL in a routine or cavalier manner, neither individually nor collectively… The control therefore of GOK is not nominal, supervisory or merely regulatory in nature over CIAL, but complete and total in its effect and impact, in the day to day functioning and decision making of CIAL. This Court cannot break away from the reality that when senior government functionaries, bureaucrats and officers preside over the meeting, then non-government members are left with little choices, but to follow the opinion and suggestions of their government counterparts in Board meetings.”

CIAL substantially financed by the state and central governments

The Court noted that the substantial financing cannot be termed as financing that exceeds 50% but implied aid which is tangible, considerable or significant and not mere 'pittance'.

It observed:

"...the applicability of the expression 'substantial financing' is not about the returns being earned or the flavour of financing or investment, but the factum of extent of financing...However, the factum of 'substantial financing' under Sec.2(h)(d)(i) cannot be adjudged on the basis of returns being earned out of the investment, but from the investment and financial support (in whatever form) extended to the borrowing entity as a support system."

Directions

The Court directed CIAL to dispose of the RTI applications preferred by the respondents within the statutory timeline provided under the Act.

Further, a direction was made to the Chief Secretary of the state government to ensure that there is proper compliance and action taken against the Managing Director of CIAL for filing the writ appeals without the sanction of the Board of Directors.

It held, "The Chief Secretary is also directed to ensure proper compliance and file action taken report in a sealed cover before the Registry of this Court within a period of 15 days of receipt of a copy of this judgment."

The Court also made it clear that it has not looked into the merits of the RTI applications of the respondents but has only decided on the issue of whether CIAL comes within the purview of the RTI Act.

Thus, the Court dismissed the writ appeals and directed the Registry to post the cases after 15 days for reporting compliance.

Case No: WA No. 45 of 2023 and connected cases

Case Title: M/s Cochin International Airport Ltd. v. State Information Commission and Ors. and connected cases

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 486

Counsel for CIAL: S. Sreekumar (Sr.), Harikrishnan S.

Counsel for the State Information Commission: M. Ajay, SC

Counsel for the respondents: P.K. Ibrahim, M. Abdul Rasheed, K.P. Prasanth, T.S. Krishnendu, Archana Suresh, Haritha Hariharan, P.S. Biju, C.E. Unnikrishnan, Paul Jacob, M. Ajay, Leo Lukose, Enoch David Simon Joel, S. Sreedev, Rony Jose, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Derick Mathai Saji, Karan Scaria Abraham, Ittoop Joy Thattil

Click To Read/Download Judgment