NPCI

3.1 The complainant while arguing his case and seeking the aforementioned reliefs inter alia submitted that the NPCI having been incorporated in the year 2008 under Section 25 of the Companies Act,1956 was a 'public authority'under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act,2005; that the respondent company (NPCD being a deemed Govemment company within the meaning of Section 619B of the Companies Act, the auditors of the respondent company were appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India(CAG) under sub-section (5) of Section 139 of the Companies Act, 2013; that only the company owned or controlled directly or indirectly by the Central Govemment or by the State Govemment were subject to CAG Audit; that the respondent company was 'substantially financed' by the Govemment; that the respondent company was an umbrella orgqfg4tion..fol'retail p4yrnent system in India with the guidance and support of Reserv€,Bank oflndia as severalp,qblic functions were carried out by the NPCI such as; a) National Automated Clearing House System; (b) cheque by the Ministry of Finance revealed that the respondent0ompany was entrusted with operations of the detailed payment s)'stemi,indr that'their case was supported by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the following cases:- Central Inland Water 'lransport Corporation Limited and Ors Vs Brojo Nath Ganguly and Ors AIR 1986 SC 157 1; General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur, UP Vs Satrughan Nishad and Ors (2003) 8 SCC 639;Ajay Hasia and Ors Vs Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and Ors AIR l98l SC 487;Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd., Vs State of Kerala and Ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82; New Tirupur Area De'velopment Corporation Ltd. Vs State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 4 MadLJ ll10; Binny Ltd. And Ors V V Sadasivan and Ors. (2005) 6 SCC 657; National Page 4 of 17 Stock Exchange of India Vs Central Information Commission and Ors. (2010) SCC On Line Del 15l3and Tamil Nadu Road Development Co. Ltd Vs Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Ors. 2009(243) ELT 171(Mad)