Judgment Aggrieved by the order dated 6. 2008, passed by the District Registrar (Societies Registration, Thanjavur, 2nd respondent herein, Karanthai Tamil Sangam represented by its Secretary, petitioner herein, has filed this present writ petition. 2. Facts of the case are as follows: Karanthai Tamil Sangam was established in the year 1911 in Karanthattangudi, Thanjavur town. The object of the society is to develop Tamil Language and spread educational institutions. The Sangam has established several educational institutions. There are 147 life members and elections are conducted periodically. The elected representatives hold the office for a period of three years and administer the affair of the Sangam. 3. According to the petitioner, the first respondent was originally a member of a Sangam. As his conduct was harmful and as he also came to adverse notice, in the general body meeting held on 29. 2002 a resolution was passed and accordingly, he was removed from the membership of the society. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred an appeal to the 2nd respondent. His removal was also confirmed and that the appeal filed by the 1st respondent and another person by name Mr. T.K.P. Govindasamy were dismissed by the District Registrar on 210. 2004 and thus, the removal of his membership has reached a finality. 4. According to the petitioner, the affairs of the society has been done in accordance with the statutory provisions and bye-laws. The first respondent filed a representation on 12. 2002, to the District Registrar Registration, Thanjavur and sought for an enquiry on the basis of some frivolous allegations made against the society, its affairs and administration. A writ petition No. 7706 of 2003 was also filed for a mandamus to consider the aboveaaid representation and this Court by order dated 13. 2003 directed the respondents therein, to dispose of the representation within a period of three months. Accordingly, an enquiry was also conducted by the competent authority and ultimately the Inspector General of Registration, Chennai, passed an order on 5. 2008, holding that the allegations and accusations made by the respondent were not proved for the purpose of appointment of an enquiry officer, as insisted by the first respondent herein, and accordingly, the said authority passed an order on 5. 2008. Thus, the matter relating to an enquiry sought for by the first respondent under Section 36 of the Registration Act has reached its finality. 5. 2008. Thus, the matter relating to an enquiry sought for by the first respondent under Section 36 of the Registration Act has reached its finality. 5. While that be so, the first respondent sought for a xerox copy of the day book pertaining to a receipt of a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- received by the Sangam from Karanthai Arts Collage. In exercise of powers under the Right to Information Act, the District Registrar, Thanjavur, 2nd respondent herein, lay his order dated 6. 2008, has directed the Managing Director of Karanthai Tamil Sangam to issue a xerox copy of the abovesaid document. The said order is put to challenge in this writ petition. 6. Assailing the correctness of the impugned directions, Mr. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, submitted that the petitioner Sangam not being aided by the Government, does not fall within the ambit of Right to Information Act, to accede to the request of the first respondent. According to him, the society has to function as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act and the bye-laws made thereunder and inasmuch as by resolution No.7 dated 29. 2002, the membership of the first respondent has already been terminated, he has no legal or statutory right to seek for any information, even under the Right to Information Act. 7. Inviting the attention of this Court, to an order passed in case No. 29011/Q/07 dated 2. 2008 by the Tamilnadu Information Commission on a query dated 310. 2007, made by Thiru. M. Saravanamuthu, regarding the functions of a welfare association not aided by the government, leaned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the state information Commission, Chennai has already considered in similar issue as to whether an association not aided by the Government would not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the same yardstick is applicable to the petitioner’s Sangam which is not aided by the Government and therefore, the order impugned is in excess of jurisdiction and therefore liable to be set aside. 8. Taking this Court through the definition of the word ‘information’ as provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he submitted that the information sought for do not come under the ambit of the definition and therefore, the directions issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. 8. Taking this Court through the definition of the word ‘information’ as provided under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he submitted that the information sought for do not come under the ambit of the definition and therefore, the directions issued by the 2nd respondent is liable to be set aside. In sum and substance, he submitted that no information need to be divulged to the 1st respondent, has already been removed from the membership. 9. The respondent in his counter affidavit has stated that Karanthai Tamil Sangam has been running the following educational institutions: “i) Radhakrishna Elementary School; ii) Umamaheswaranar Higher Secondary School iii) Tamilavel Umamaheswarana Karanathai Arts Collage and an Orphanage.” 10. According to him, the above institutions are aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu expect certain courses Chemistry P.G. Computer Science and B.Com. He has further submitted that the Sangam is a public institution aided by the Government of Tamil Nadu and in fact, in G.O. Ms. No. 20, dated 21. 1995, a sum of Rs.45 lakhs was sanctioned to the petitioner Sangam, so as to enable the petitioner Sangam to fulfill the following tasks: “i) To construct a building for the orphanage being run by the Sangam ii) To construct a dining hall for the students and iii) Additional library building to preserve and procure the ancient Tamil scripts.” .11. Placing reliance on the definition of the word, public authority as defined in Sections 2(h), (d) (i) and (ii), the respondent has contented that the petitioner Sangam, substantially financed by the .Government would come under the purview of the Right to Information Act and it has an obligation to provide any information, when a request under Section 6(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is made. It is in the context, the petitioner has submitted that the powers exercised by the competent authority under the Right to Information Act directing the petitioner Sangam to furnish a copy of day book pertaining to a sum of Rs.3 lakhs received by the Sangam is not open to challenge, by way of a writ petition, without exhausting the alternative remedy under Section 23 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In sum and substance, the respondent has contented that the petitioner Sangam substantially financed, it would come under the Right to Information Act. 12. In sum and substance, the respondent has contented that the petitioner Sangam substantially financed, it would come under the Right to Information Act. 12. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record. .13. Before adverting to the facts of this case, it is relevant to have a cursory look at certain provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. .“As per Section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.” 14. Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, defines “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted- .(a) by or under the Constitution; .(b) by any other law made by Parliament; .(c) by any other law made by State legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- .(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; .(ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government; .(i) any document, manuscript and file; .(ii) any microfilm, microfiche and facsimile copy of a document; “record” includes- (iii) any reproduction of image or images embodied in such microfilm (whether enlarged or not); and iv) any other material produced by a computer or any other device;” 15. Section 8 of the Act deals with certain exemptions from disclosure and it reads as follows: 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. Section 8 of the Act deals with certain exemptions from disclosure and it reads as follows: 8. Exemption from disclosure of information. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,- .(a) information, disclosure of which would prejudicially affect the sovereinty and integrity of India, the security, strategic, scientific or economic interests of the State, relation with foreign State or lead to incitement of an offence; .(b) information which has been expressly forbidden to published by any Court of law or Tribunal or the disclosure of which m & y constitute conteapt of Court; .(c) information, the disclosure of which would cause a breach of privilege of Parliament or the State Legislature; .(d) information including commercial confidence, trade secrets or intellectual property, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of a third party, unless the competent authority is satisfied that larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; .(e) information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship, unless the competent authority is satisfied that the larger public interest warrants the disclosure of such information; .(f) information nsceived in confidence from foreign Government; .(g) information, the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physically safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; .(h) information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; .(i) cabinet papers including records of deliberations of the Council of Ministers, Secretaries and other officers: Provided that the decisions of Council of Ministers, the reason thereof, and the material on the basis of which the decisions were taken shall be made public after the decision has been taken, and the matter is complete, or over: Provided further that those matters which come under the exemption specified in this section shall not be disclosed; (i) informationwhich relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the disclosure of such information: Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person. .(2) Notwithstanding anything in the Official Secrets Act, 1923 (19 of 1923) nor any of the exemptions permissible in accordance with sub-section (1), a public authority my allow access to information, if public interest in disclosure outweights the harm to the protected interests. .(3) Subjects the provisions of the clauses (a), (c) and (i) of sub-section (1), any information relating to any occurrence, event or matter which has taken place, occurred or happened twenty years before the date on which any request made under Section 5 shall be provided to any person making a request under that Section: Provided that where any question arises as to the date from which the said period of twenty years has to be computed, the decision of the Central Government shall be final, subject to the usual appeals provided for in this Act.” 16. Similarly, Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Right deals with the rights of a person to seek for information subject to certain exceptions. Similarly, Section 3 of the Tamilnadu Right deals with the rights of a person to seek for information subject to certain exceptions. The said Section reads as follows: Right of access to information 3 (1) Every person bonafide requiring information may have access to such information in accordance with the procedure specified under this Act, .(2) Not withstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), no person shall be given information relating to- .(a) informationrelating to defence security; .(b) information whose disclosure will prejudice the security, integrity and sovereignty of the Nation and the State; .(c) information whose disclosure would harm the conduct of international relations or affairs; .(d) informationreceived in confidence from foreign Governments, foreign Courts or international organisations; .(e) information whose disclosure would harm the frankness and candour of internal discussion, including; .(i) proceedings of Cabinet and Cabinet committees; .(ii) internal opinion, advice, recommendations, consultation and deliberation; (iii) projections and assumptions relating to internal policy analysis; analysis of alternative policy options and information relating to rejected policy options; .(iv) confidential communications between departments, public bodies and regulatory bodies; .(f) information relating to confidential communications between Ministers and the Governor; .(g) information whose disclosure would prejudice the administration of justice, including fair trial and the enforcement or proper administration of the law; .(h) information whose disclosure would prejudice legal proceedings or the proceedings of any tribunal, public inquiry or other formal investigation (whether actual or likely) or whose disclosure is has been or is likely to be addressed in the context of such proceedings; .(i) information covered by legal professional privilege; .(j) information whose disclosure would prejudice the prevention, investigation or detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders; .(k) information whose disclosure would harm public safety or public order; .(l) information whose disclosure would endanger the life or physical safety of any person, or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes; .(m) information whose disclosure would increase the likelihood of damage to the environment; or rare or endangered species and their habitats; .(n) information whose disclosure would harm the ability of the Government to manage the economy, prejudice the conduct of official market operations, or could lead to improper gain or advantage to any person; .(o) information whose disclosure would prejudice the assessment or collection of tax, duties, or assist tax avoidance or evasion; .(p) information including commercial confidences, trade secrets or intellectual property whose unwarranted disclosure would harm the competitive position of the third party; .(q) information whose disclosure could lead to improper gain or advantage or would prejudice, .(i) the competitive position of a department or other public body or authority; .(ii) negotiations or the effective conduct of personnel management or commercial or contractual activities, .(r) information held in consequence of having been supplied in confidence by a person who, .(i) gave the information under a statutory guarantee that its confidentiality would be protected, or .(ii) was not under any legal obligation, whether actual or implied, to supply it, and has not consented to its disclosure; .(s) information whose disclosure is prohibited under any enactment, regulation or international agreement; .(t) information whose release would constitute a breach of Parliament/Legislative Assembly/Council Privilege; .(u) the documents referred in Sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, .(v) any matter which is likely to,- .(i) helpthe commission of offence; .(ii) help or facilitate escape from legal custody or affect prison security; or (iii) Impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. (3)(a) Any person who wants to have access to the information may make an application in the manner prescribed to the Competent Authority in such form with such particulars, as may be prescribed. .(b) Where an application is made under clause (a) and the information is not available with the Competent Authority but is available with another department or authority, the Competent Authority .may transfer the application to the Competent Authority with whom such information is available and inform the applicant accordingly. The Competent Authority to whom such application is transferred shall furnish the information within thirty working days from the date of receipt of the application from the Competent Authority from whom it has been referred or received. .(c) Where an application is so transferred to a department or authority, the head of that department or authority shall be deemed to be Competent Authority. .(d)(i) Upon the receipt of an application requesting for an information, the Competent Authority shall consider it and pass orders thereon either granting or refusing the request, as soon as practicable and in any case, within thirty working days from the date of receipt of application. .(ii) In other cases, the Competent Authority shall take all reasonable steps to inform the applicant of its decision on the request as soon as practicable. .(4)(a) If in the opinion of the Competent Authority any information, if disclosed, is likely to cause breach of the peace or cause violence, or disharmony among the section of the people on the basis of religion, language, caste, creed, community or if it is prejudicial to public interest, the Competent Authority shall refuse to give information. .(b) Any application made under clause (a) shall be rejected, for reasons to be recorded in writing, if in the opinion of the Competent Authority,- .(i) any such information sought falls in any one or more categories of items listed under Section 3(2), or .(ii) the disclosure of the information sought would be prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, or maintenance of essential services and supplies.” 17. Chapter 3 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975, deals with the management and administration of the Society registered under the aboveaaid Act. “As per Section 14 (1) of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, every registered society shall maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its aembers. Chapter 3 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975, deals with the management and administration of the Society registered under the aboveaaid Act. “As per Section 14 (1) of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, every registered society shall maintain a register containing the names, addresses and occupations of its aembers. .(2) Theregistrar of members shall, during business hours, be open to the inspection of any member free of charge and any member may make extracts therefrom. .(i) its bye-laws; .(ii) thereceipts and expenditure account; and As per Section 11 of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, every registered society shall supply to any member, on application and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, a copy of- (iii) the balance sheet.” 18. Rule 23 of the Tamilnadu Societies Registration Rules states that for the purpose of Section 17, the fee for the supply of documents to a member shall be rupee one for each copy of document required. 19. The contention of the petitioner is that they are not substantially financed either directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the Government of India or Government of Tamilnadu and therefore the Sangam is not a “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is also the contention of the petitioner that the Sangam is not established, constituted or ovned or controlled by the Government of Tamilnadu. The words “body owned”, “controlled” or substantially financed” have not been defined under the Act or the rules framed thereunder and “public authority” includes a non government organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate government. The term “substantial” employed in Section 2(h)of the Act has come up for consideration before this Court in Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited, represented by its Director-in-charge, Chennai v. Tamil Nadu Information Commission, represented by its Registrar, Chennai and Another, (2008) 8 MLJ 17, where this Court has held as follows: “The word “substantial” is not defined in the Act. For the word “substantial” it is not possible” to lay down, any clear and specific definition. It must be a relative one, however, “substantial” means real or actual as opposed to trivial. “Substantial” also means practicable or as far as possible, hence, the word ‘substantial’ not to be construed as higher percentage of the estimated amount or otherwise.” 20. For the word “substantial” it is not possible” to lay down, any clear and specific definition. It must be a relative one, however, “substantial” means real or actual as opposed to trivial. “Substantial” also means practicable or as far as possible, hence, the word ‘substantial’ not to be construed as higher percentage of the estimated amount or otherwise.” 20. At paragraph Nos.15 to 18, 21 and 23, this Court has held as follows: “15. If we look at the definition of Section 2(h), which has been extracted herein above, it is clear that the appellant-company does not come under the provisions of Section 2h(a), (b), (c) or (d), but thereafter Section 2(h) (d) of the definition clause uses the word “includes”. It is well known that when the word “includes” is used in an interpretation clause, it is used to enlarge the meaning of the words and phrases occurring in the body of the statute. Reference in this connection can be made to G.P. Singh’s “Principles ofStatutory Interpretation”. In the 10th edition of the said treatise, the learned author formulated that when the word defined is declared to “include” such and such, “the definition is prima facie extensive” (page 175 of the book.) In support of the aforesaid formulation, the learned author has referred to a number of decisions. The latest decision referred to in support of the aforesaid proposition was rendered in the case of Associated Indent Mechanical P. Ltd. v. w.b. Small Industries Development Corporation Ltd., AIR 2007 SC 788 of the report, the learned judges held as follows: “10. The definition of premises in Section 2(c) uses the word ‘includes’ at two places. It is well settled that the word ‘include’ is generally used in interpretation clauses in order to enlarge the meaning of the words or phrases occurring in the body of the statute; and when it is so used those words or phrases must be construed as comprehending, not only such things, as they signify according to their natural import, but also those things which the interpretation clause declares that they shall include (see Dadaji alias Dina v. Sukhdeobabu AIR 1980 1 SCR 1135 , Reserve Bank of India v. Peerless General Finance and Investment Co. Ltd, AIR (1987) 2 SCR 1 and Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 SC 335 : (1989) SCC 164.” 16. Ltd, AIR (1987) 2 SCR 1 and Mahalakshmi Oil Mills v. State of A.P., AIR 1989 SC 335 : (1989) SCC 164.” 16. Therefore, obviously the definition of bodies referred to in Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act would receive a liberal interpretation, and here the words which, fall for interpretation are the words “controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. 17. We are here concerned with the interpretation of the definition clause in the RTI Act. The Act has been enacted “in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority”. In the Preamble to the Act, it is made clear that “democracy requires an informed citizency and transparency of information which are vital to its functioning and also to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed”. From the Preamble to the Act it is clear that revelation of information may cause conflict with the other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, but the Act has been enacted to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramountcy of the democratic ideal. 18. The RTI Act thus attempts to inculcate openness in our democratic republic. It has to be accepted that one of the salience of openness in democracy is an access to information about the functioning of the public authorities. 21. The RTI Act is virtually enacted to give effect to citizen’s right to know. Citizen’s right to know has been construed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as emanating from the citizen’s right to freedom of speech and expression, which is a fundamental right. So, a legislation, which has been enacted to give effect to right to know, which is one of the basic human rights in today’s world, must receive a purposive and broad interpretation. 23. The RTI Act has also provided a remedy for facilitating the exercise of the right to information and the reason for the remedy is also indicated in the Preamble to the Act. So going by the direction in Heydon’s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a followed by the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 603 such an Act must receive a purposive interpretation to further the purpose of the Act. So any interpretation which frustrates the purpose of RTI Act must be eschewed. So going by the direction in Heydon’s case (1584) 3 Co Rep 7a followed by the Supreme Court in Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (1955) 2 SCR 603 such an Act must receive a purposive interpretation to further the purpose of the Act. So any interpretation which frustrates the purpose of RTI Act must be eschewed. Following the said well known canon of construction, this Court interprets the expression “public authority under Section 2(h)(d)(i) liberally, so that the authorities like the appellant who are controlled and substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the Government, come within the purview of the RTI Act. In coming to the conclusion, this Court reminds itself of the Preamble to the RTI Act which necessitates a construction which will hopefully cleanse our democratic polity of the corrosive effect of corruption and infuse transparency in its activities. In this context a few lines from Joseph Pulitzer, in a slightly different context, will be very apt and are reproduced hereunder: “There is not a crime, there is not a dodge, there is not a trick, there is not a swindle which does not live by secrecy. Get these things out in the open, describe them, attack them, ridicule them in the press, and sooner or later public opinion will sweep them away.” 21. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in V.S. Lee v. State of Kerala represented by Chief Secretary and Others, 2010(1) ILR (Ker) 606, while dealing with the question as to whether an aided college in State of Kerala would come within the definition of ‘public authority’ as defined in Section 2 (h)(d) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. After considering few decisions, including a case in Thalapalam S.C.B. Ltd v. Union of India 2009 (2) KLT 507 , the Court held as follows: “2. Adverting to the preamble to the RTI Act, the learned Judge held that it is abundantly clear that the scope of the Act is much wider in its applicability than getting confined to Governments and their instrumentalities and that the Act is intended to harmonise the conflict between the right of the citizens to secure access to information and the necessity to preserve confidentiality of sensitive information. Noticing that even the preamble states that the Act is intended to provide the practical regime of right to information in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, it has been held that in terms of Sections 3 and 4, the public authorities are obliged to supply information. Considering the definition of ‘public authority in Section 2(h), it has been laid down that on the basis of the undisputed facts regarding the control and funding of the aided private colleges after the introduction of the Direct Payment Scheme, such an institution falls within the definition of the term ‘public authority notwithstanding whether it may, or not, be ‘State’ within Article 12 of the Constitution. It was specifically held that the Act is not confined to bodies answering the definition of ‘State’ under Article 12, which definition primarily governs enforcement of fundamental rights. Molding that the Act is intended at achieving the object of providing an effective framework for effectuating the right to information recognised under Article 19 of the Constitution, it has been held that aided private colleges in the State of Kerala fall within the term ‘public authority’ in the RTI Act. 23. Noticing the aforesaid, it was held by this Court in Thalapalam S.C.B. Ltd v. Union of India (supra), as follows: 17. We, the People of India have constituted ourselves into a democratic Republic; that Nation and her People, being governed by the Constitution of India. Democracy requires an informed citizery and transparency of information that are vital to its functioning. Availability of inforsation is necessary to contain corruption. The instrumentalities which meddle with public funds or with the interest of the citizens are to be made accountable. In actual practice, revelation of information is likely to conflict with other public interests, including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. It is necessary to harmonise these conflicting interests while preserving the paramount status of the democratic ideal. The RTI Act is enacted in this constitutional backdrop. The object sought to be achieved by that enactment is to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information, The purpose of that is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The RTI Act is enacted in this constitutional backdrop. The object sought to be achieved by that enactment is to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information, The purpose of that is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The RTI Act is a mode to access information. What may come out ultimately could be the assurance that all is well; or should be shocking revelations which may call for appropriate action. This again, would be a matter of concern for the citizenry”. 18. As already noticed, the right to information and, therefore, the right of access to information are species of fundamental rights referable to the freedom of speech, enumerated in the Constitution as a fundamental right. This conceptualisation is part of the law laid by the Apex Court in the precedents noted above. They are therefore part of the law of the land as emanating from the Constitution, that too, from Part III itself. Effectuation of the fundamental rights does not require any legislation. It inheres unitarily in every citizen and collectively in the citizenry, as a lot. Legislation can be to effect restrictions on the enjoyment of the fundamental rights; to the extent restrictions are permissible within the constitutional parameters, or, legislations could provide for the free and orderly flow of the modality for the enjoyment of those rights. While the former is a restrictive covenant on the enjoyment and could affect only those who are entitled to enjoy, the latter class of legislative provisions are intended to provide the procedure to reach at the guaranteed fundamental rights, hassle-free. 19. Analysing the RTI Act with the aforesaid in mind, it can be seen that the provision in Section 3 thereof that subject to the provisions of that Act, all citizens shall have the right to information, is the legislative recognition of the constitutional right of every citizen to information, including the right to access information. 19. Analysing the RTI Act with the aforesaid in mind, it can be seen that the provision in Section 3 thereof that subject to the provisions of that Act, all citizens shall have the right to information, is the legislative recognition of the constitutional right of every citizen to information, including the right to access information. The provisions in the RTI Act, subject to which the citizen could enjoy the right to information, are laws amounting to restrictions made by the Parliament on the right to access information, and therefore, restrictions on the freedom of speech The legitimacy of any such restriction has to answer the constitutional touchstones, the authority to make such restriction is provided for and controlled by Article 19(2) of the Constitution. The said provision enumerates the grounds on which a restriction could be imposed by law on the citizens fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression. The authorization to make law imposing reasonable restrictions on that fundamental right is confined to be only in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with Foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of Court, defamation or incitement to an offence. Unlike in Clause (6) of that Article which carves out the limits of legislative permissiveness to impose restrictions on the fundamental right to the freedom to practice any profession or to carry-on any occupation, trade or business, Clause (2) of Article 19 does not provide the interest of the general public as a ground on which the right to freedom of speech and expression could be curtailed. This distinction is well established. See Sakal Papers (P) Ltd. V. Union of India AIR 1962 SC 305 . Unless justified under Clause (2) of Article 19, any restriction of the fundamental right guaranteed by Article 19(1)(1) would be plainly violative of the freedom of speech and expression, a valuable and cherished fundamental right. The parliamentary presentment through the RTI Act is not a statutory conferment of a right that could be passed off, as merely a statutory right. For, legislation cannot whittle down a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. 24. The parliamentary presentment through the RTI Act is not a statutory conferment of a right that could be passed off, as merely a statutory right. For, legislation cannot whittle down a fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution. 24. Dilating on the inclusive component of the definition of “public authority”, it was held in Thalapalam S.C.B. Ltd. v. Union of India (supra) that the legislative provision by funds provided by is a clear and specific expression that such funds need not necessarily belong to the Government but which would be within the regulatory control of the Government for being provided to such authorities. It was laid down that the essence of the act of providing is the making available of what is required to be provided. In this view of the matter, it was held that “funds provided by the appropriate Government” is not necessarily providing funds from what belong to the appropriate Government, either exclusively or otherwise, but also those provisions which come through the machinery of the appropriate Government, including by allocation or provision of funds with either the concurrence or clearance of the appropriate Government. This view emanates on a plain reading of the provision under consideration, having regard to the object sought to be achieved by the RTI Act and in this view, the said provision has to be read to take within its sweep all funds provided by the appropriate Government, either from its own bag or funds which reach the societies through the appropriate Government or with its concurrence or clearance. This view was further buttressed stating as follows: Not only do I find no ground to exclude this interpretation, but see much support for it. If the legislative intention were not so, it was unnecessary to state in the RTI Act “…… substantially financed …… by funds provided by ………..”. It would have been sufficient to state “……… substantially financed by ………..”. The use of the words “by funds provided by “enlarges and dilates the scope of the words “substantially financed” in that provision. It has to be remembered that it would never be assumed that the legislature uses language superfluously. The Courts will not treat any legislative usage as surplusage, but will look at the very use of the language by the legislature, as international of conveying the true and complete meaning of what the legislature intended to say. It has to be remembered that it would never be assumed that the legislature uses language superfluously. The Courts will not treat any legislative usage as surplusage, but will look at the very use of the language by the legislature, as international of conveying the true and complete meaning of what the legislature intended to say. As stated by the Apex Court in Babaji Kondeli Garad v. Basik Merchants Coop. Bank Ltd. (1984) 2 5CC 50, the Legislature uses appropriate language to manifest its intentions. Arming of citizenry with information is not a matter that should be trimmed, crippled, clipped or excluded. It ought to be permitted to be available wherever it could, except where it is impermissible. This is why even in the Act, which transformed the concept of freedom of information to be that of a right to information, clear and specific exceptions and exclusions are legislatively provided and they are the only prohibited zones insulated from access under the RTI Act. This project of the RTI Act has to be achieved and the interpretation adopted above is purposive, to give effect to the legislative intention of that statute.” 22. Perusal of G.O.Ms. No.20, Tamil Development Culture (S1) Department, dated 21. 1995 shows that the petitioner Sangam was found by a Tamil Scholar Tha.Ve. Umamaheswaram Pillai for the upliftment of Tamilians and that it is also running an orphanage for which there was no building of its own and there was no dining hall for the students hostel run by the petitioner Sangam. Considering the poor financial position of the petitioner Sangam and the service rendered by it for the development of Tamil Language, the Government have accorded sanction of Ra.45 lakhs so as to enable the Sangam to fulfill the following tasks: “i) To construct a building for the orphanage being run by the Sangam ii) To construct a dining hall for the students and iii) Additional library building to preserve and procure the ancient Tamil scripts”. 23. Inaddition to the above, the Government have also sanctioned a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs for the purpose of 57 copper plates, two seals of Rajendra Chola-I from the Karandai Tamil Sangam for being displayed in Government Museum, Madras in memory of the 8th world Tamil conference. The expenditure has been directed to be maintained in two different accounts. 23. Inaddition to the above, the Government have also sanctioned a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs for the purpose of 57 copper plates, two seals of Rajendra Chola-I from the Karandai Tamil Sangam for being displayed in Government Museum, Madras in memory of the 8th world Tamil conference. The expenditure has been directed to be maintained in two different accounts. Thus, it could be seen that there is a substantial finance from the Government. for certain specific activities like construction of buildings, construction of dinning hall, Laboratory building and additional building and also for the acquisition of historic pieces namely 57 copper plates, two seals of Rajendra Chola-I for being displayed in Government Museum, Madras. The Commissioner of Museum has been directed to be the Estimating Reconciling and Controlling Authority for the above said heads of account. Though the word “substantial assistance” has not been specifically defined in the Act, the said amount of Rs.75 lakhs cannot be said to be trivial, particularly when the Commissioner of Museum, State of Tamil Nadu has been directed to be the Estimating Reconciling and Controlling Authority for the above said head of account, when the funds provided by the appropriate Government is regulated and controlled by an authority constituted for the specific purpose with concurrence of the appropriate Government, a Non governmental Organisation which receives allocation provision of fund has to be treated as a public authority amenable to the jurisdiction of the competent authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the State Laws. Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that it is open to a citizen under the Right to Information Act to seek for any information as regards the grant and the activities directed to be undertaken by the Government and not for any other activity carried on by the Sangam or the affairs of the Sangam, this Court is not inclined to accept the said contention for the reason that once the petitioner Sangam is substantially financed directly by the appropriate Government namely, the State Government, then there cannot be any distinction with reference to the matters pertaining to the funds sanctioned by the Government and other activities of the Non Governmental Organisation. The petitioner Sangam cannot be said to be a public authority, only for a limited purpose. The petitioner Sangam cannot be said to be a public authority, only for a limited purpose. Yet another aspect to be considered is that the educational instigations run by the petitioner Sangam are stated to be aided by the government which fact has not been disputed. Such a construction and meaning of Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 would be opposed to the objects of the Right to Information Act which has been enacted to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure to access to information under the control of public authorities in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The request sought for by the respondent is to provide a copy of a day book pertaining to a sum of Rs.3 lakhs received by the petitioner Sangam and the said information is not exempted under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Right to Information Act, 2007 or under the Central Act 2005. Considering the object of the Right to Information Act, which is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority including the Non Government Organisation, substantially financed a liberal interpretation to be applied to that definition with reference to the matters referred to Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, as held by this Court in Tamil Nadu Road Development Company Limited, represented by its Director-in-charge, Chennai v. Tamil Nadu Information Commission, represented by its Registrar, Chennai and Another (supra). As long as the information sought for is not prohibited under the statute or the rules framed thereunder, the petitioner is bound to furnish the same to any citizen including a non member of the Sangam. As per Section 17 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1975, every registered society shall supply to any member, on application and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed, copy of i) its bye laws, ii) the receipts and expenditure account and iii) the balance sheet. Specific fee has also been prescribed under Chapter 3 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 for the purpose of Section 17. Section 17 of the abovesaid Act, does not make any distinction, as to whether such member should be an existing member or removed from the society. Specific fee has also been prescribed under Chapter 3 of the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act 1975 for the purpose of Section 17. Section 17 of the abovesaid Act, does not make any distinction, as to whether such member should be an existing member or removed from the society. In a given case, where against a member of a society any disciplinary proceeding is taken and removed for certain financial irregularities of the society and if a demand is made by him regarding the receipts and expenditure account or even balance sheet for a particular period, for the purpose of defence in any proceeding before a statutory authority or Court of law, then in such a case, it is not open to the society to deny copies of the above said documents, as it would be amounting to denial of legitimate right of a member, to effectively defend the proceedings taken against him. If the society is enjoined with a duty to furnish the documents stated in Section 17 to any member, then the right of a citizen to seek for any information, other than those exempted information under Section 2(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 read with Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2007 cannot be circumscribed only to the limited information, regarding the funds allocated by the Government and the activities directed to be carried on. When the authority under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, 1915 is bound to furnish the information under Section 17 of the Act, then the Society cannot take a different stand under the Right to Information Act. Unless there is a specific enemption from disclosure of information, as contemplated under Section 8 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 then, there is a corresponding obligation on the part of the public authorities which includes a Non Governmental Organisation substantially financed by the appropriate Government to furnish such information as is required by any citizen. 24. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the direction issued by the second respondent to the petitioner Sangam to furnish a copy of the day book pertaining to the receipt of a sum of Rs.3 lakhs by the Sangam cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, both Central and State and the rules framed thereunder. 25. 25. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Tamil Nadu Information Council, Chennai has already considered and negatived a similar issue as to whether the query, made by an individual with regard to the functioning of a welfare association, not aided by the Government and that the same yardstick has to be applied to the petitioner Sangam cannot be countenanced in law, as the welfare association in the above case was not aided by the Government and on the other hand, the petitioner Sangam has been substantially aided by the Government to the tune of Rs.75 lakhs and that the Commissioner of Museum has been nominated as the Estimating Reconciling and Controlling Authority for the above said head of account. 26. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned direction of the second respondent, the District Registrar, Thanjavur, directing the petitioner Sangam to furnish a copy of day book pertaining to the receipt of Rs.3 lakhs by the Sangam to the first respondent is not manifestly illegal contrary to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. No costs, Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. Petition dismissed.