Public authority, in the policy statement is not a term of art. It must be construed in a purpose way, taking particular account of the context, McFarland HL(NI) (in re:), (2004) 1 WLR 1289.Is a body, not necessarily a country council, municipal corporation or other local authority, which has public or statutory duties to perform and which perform those duties and carries out its transactions for the benefit of the public and not for private profit, Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 30, p. 682.
Means any authority or body established or con-stituted,--
(i) by or under the Constitution;
(ii) by any law made by the appropriate Government,
and includes any other body owned, controlled or substantially financed by funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government. [Freedom of Information Act, 2002 (5 of 2003), s. 2(f)]
Public Authority--Karnataka University being an authority under Article 12 of the constitution is covered by the definition of public authority, Shivanna Waik v. Bangalore University, AIR 2006 NOC 145 (Karn).
Means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or the 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 organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government. [The Right of Information Act, 2005, s. 2(h)]
Public authority, Railtrack PLc is not a public authority within the meaning of s. 6(3) of the 1998 Act, as (i) that the business of running a railway is not intrinsically and act of government, (ii) that there is a clear commercial objective in that it is concerned to make profits for its share-holders from its operations as an infrastructure company, (iii) that there was no obligation on the Railtrack Infrastructure Ltd. to conduct its operations in a manner subservient to the public interest, (iv) that the Railtrack is not democratically accountable to central or local governments (v) that the appointment of the defendant's board of directors is not subject to government influence or control, (vi) that the defendant possessed no special powers nor did it enjoy immunities which might have been indications of publicness, (vii) that it was not publicly funded and (viii) that it had no special powers beyond those which resulted from those which regulated relations between individuals, [see (English) Human Rights Act, 1998 (C42), s. 6(3)], Cameron v. Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd., (2007) 1 WLR 163 QB.