Remanded

Kattoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. v. the State Information Commission of Kerala

Kerala HC7 Aug 2012WP(C)/919/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the applicability of the Right to Information Act to a cooperative society. The court set aside the complaints against the petitioner and directed the authorities to reconsider the matter in light of the Supreme Court decision in Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur v. State of Manipur, affirming that cooperative societies are public authorities.

What did the court decide?

Exts.P3 and P5 proceedings set aside; authorities directed to consider matter afresh and pass fresh orders.

Kattoor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. Vs the State… — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN

¶4

TUESDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST 2012/16TH SRAVANA 1934

¶5

WP(C).No. 919 of 2012 (L)

¶6

PETITIONER(S):

¶7

KATTOOR SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY,KATTOOR P.O.,THRISSUR DIST

¶8

BY ADVS.SRI.V.G.ARUN SRI.T.R.HARIKUMAR

¶9

RESPONDENT(S):

¶10

1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION OF KERALA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNEN ROAD THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001

¶11

2. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL)OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES MUKUNDAPURAM, THRISSUR DIST-691585

¶12

3. SIVARAMAN N,

¶13

THURUTHIKKATTU MARATHU HOUSE, PONJANAM P.O. THRISSUR-680702

¶14

BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN BY ADV. SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR BY ADV. SMT.P.M.NASEEMA BY ADV. SRI.TITTO THOMAS BY ADV. SRI.ADV.D.B.BINU BY ADV. SRI.K.A.ANI JOSEPH R2 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT. ANITHA RAVINDRAN

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

tss

¶17

W.P.(C) NO.919/2012

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER(S) EXHIBITS

¶20

EXT.P1:-COPY OF THE REPORT ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE IST RESPONDENT DTD 5/3/2011.

¶21

EXT.P2:-COPY OF THE STATEMENT DTD 11/6/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT.

¶22

EXT.P3:-COPY OF THE ORDER IN CP-83(3)/11/SIC DTD 14/11/2011 OF THE IST RESPONDENT.

¶23

EXT.P4:-COPY OF THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DTD 30/11/2011

¶24

EXT.P5:-COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DTD 30/11/2011 SUBMITTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶25

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS

NIL

//TRUE COPY//

P.S. TO JUDGE

tss

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J

¶31

= = = = = = = = = = = = = WP(C).No.919 of 2012

¶32

= = = = = = = = = = = = =

¶33

Dated this the 10^th August, 2012.

¶34

J U D G M E N T

¶35

The petitioner, a Primary Agricultural Credit Society, has filed this writ petition aggrieved by Exts.P3 and P5 proceedings of respondents 1 and 2. The petitioner has a contention that it is not a public authority coming within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. A Full Bench of this Court has in Mulloor Rural Coop.Society Ltd; v. State of Kerala (2012(2) KLT 865) held that a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the provisions of the Right to Information Act are applicable to the petitioner.

¶36

It is further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in

¶37

WP(C).No.919/2012.

¶38

¶39

Chief Information Commissioner, Manipur v. State of

¶40

Manipur (2011(4) ILR (Kerala) 885), Exts.P3 and P5 are not sustainable. It is contended that, the finding in Ext.P3 that the petitioner is bound to furnish the information that is sought for by the petitioner, it being a public authority is unsustainable. According to the counsel for the petitioner, no direction to furnish any information or providing access to the information sought for can be granted in exercise of the power under Section 18 of the Act. It is contended by the counsel for the first respondent that there is no positive direction in Ext.P5 to furnish the information.

¶41

A reading of Ext.P5 shows that there is an observation by the authority that the petitioner is a public authority and also that the information sought for is to be furnished. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court referred above, the authority may consider the matter afresh and pass fresh orders in accordance with the

¶42

WP(C).No.919/2012.

¶43

¶44

directions of the Supreme Court. For the above purpose, Exts.P3 and P5 proceedings are set aside.

¶45

This writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.

¶46

K.SURENDRA MOHAN, (Judge)

¶47

Kvs/-