Judgment :- 1. This Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in Order.No.13782/C/2014 dated 24.09.2014 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 1st respondent exempt the petitioner from furnishing information sought by the 2nd respondent. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner institution is a private unaided Engineering College. As per the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Ser.Co-op.Bank Ltd., Vs. State of Kerala reported in (2013 (6) CTC 98), those institutions, which are unaided and substantially aided by the Government, will not come under the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the impugned order, is not correct and further, no notice has been served. 3. It is relevant to extract para 36 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2013 (6) CTC 98), (cited supra) wherein in it has been held thus:- “36. The words 'substantially financed' have been used in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) & (ii), while defining the expression public authority as well as in Section 2(a) of the Act, while defining the expression “appropriate Government”. A body can be substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. The expression 'substantially financed', as such, has not been defined under the Act. 'Substantial' means “in a substantial manner so as to be substantial”. In Palser v. Grimling (1948) 1 All ER 1, 11 (HL), while interpreting the provisions of Section 10(1) of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Act, 1923, the House of Lords held that “substantial” is not the same as “not unsubstantial” i.e. just enough to avoid the de minimis principle. The word “substantial” literally means solid, massive etc. Legislature has used the expression “substantially financed” in Sections 2(h)(d)(i) and (ii) indicating that the degree of financing must be actual, existing, positive and real to a substantial extent, not moderate, ordinary, tolerable etc.” 4. In view of the settled position, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order, dated 24.09.2014, passed by the 1st respondent is set aside and the 1st respondent is directed to exempt the petitioner from furnishing information, as sought for by the 2nd respondent. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.