members of the public body by obtaining information through the R.T.I. Act, will be able to detect and prevent mismanagement in time. In our view, the categories mentioned in Section 2(h) of the Act exhaust themselves, hence, there is no question of adopting a liberal construction to the expression “public authority” to bring in other categories into its fold, which do not satisfy the tests we have laid down. Court cannot, when language is clear and unambiguous, adopt such a construction which, according to the Court, would only advance the objective of the Act. We are also aware of the opening part of the definition clause which states “unless the context otherwise requires”. No materials have been made available to show that the co-operative societies, with which we are concerned, in the context of the Act, would fall within the definition of Section 2(h) of the Act. The Societies, in these appeals, are not public authorities and, hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information sought for by a citizen under the R.T.I. Act. All the same, if there is any dispute on facts as to whether a particular Society is a public authority or not, the State Information Officer can examine the same and find out whether the Society in question satisfies the test laid in this judgment. (paras. 43 & 51)”
