Allowed

P.R.Ramachandran v. the State Chief Information Commissioner

Kerala HC3 Jan 2023WA/1485/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The appellant sought information under the RTI Act from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies regarding a bank employee. The authorities refused, holding cooperative societies exempt. The Single Judge dismissed the writ. The Division Bench set aside this dismissal, holding that the Registrar, as a public authority, can provide information accessible to him under the Co-operative Societies Act, an

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Single Judge was set aside, and the primary authority was directed to reconsider the appellant's RTI application in accordance with law within two mont

P.R.Ramachandran Vs the State Chief Information… — RTI and Transparency | Kerala HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR &

¶2

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY TUESDAY, THE 3^RD DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 13TH POUSHA, 1944 WA NO. 1485 OF 2022

¶3

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 28449/2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA

¶4

APPELLANT/PETITIONER:

¶5

P.R.RAMACHANDRAN

¶6

AGED 63 YEARS, S/O.LATE P.K.RAMAN NAIR, RESIDING AT 729/20, PUKKATTU VEEDU, MUPPATHADAM P.O., ALUVA , PIN - 683110 BY ADVS. DINESH R.SHENOY EBIN MATHEW SWATHI R. KRISHNAN SILESH S. PRABHU JOMOL PIUS

¶7

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER TC-14,2071, PUNNEN ROAD, NEAR JACOBS JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN – 695001

¶9

2 THE APPEAL AUTHORITY & JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030

¶10

3 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN – 683513.

¶11

4 STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), CIVIL STATION, KAKKANAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN – 682030.

¶12

5 STATE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & OFFICE INSPECTOR, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), NORTH PARUR, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT , PIN - 683513

¶13

W.A.1485/2022

¶14

¶15

6 MUPPATHADAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO.E216, MUPPATHADAM P.O. ALUVA, PIN - 683110 REP. BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶16

7 RATNAMMA SURESH AGED 61 YEARS, W/O. SURESH BABU RETIRED SENIOR CLERK, MUPPATHADAM SERVICE COOPERATIVE BANK, RESIDING AT AALATTU HOUSE, MUPPATHADAM P.O. ALUVA, PIN – 683110

¶17

BY ADVS. SHRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN.-R1 SRI.V. TEK CHAND (SENIOR G.P) (B/O) LIJI.J.VADAKEDOM -R6 DINESH MATHEW J MURIKAN K.A.ABHILASH (K/123/2008) VINOD S. PILLAI (K/631/2012) MOHAMMED THAYIB N.M. (K/1451/2019) NAYANA VARGHESE (K/283/2021) AHAMMAD SACHIN K. (K/001814/2019) K.S.SANGEETHA (KOOMBEL) (K/116/2014)

¶18

THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

W.A.1485/2022

J U D G M E N T

Dated this the 3^rd day of January, 2023

¶23

S. Manikumar, CJ

¶24

Appellant is the petitioner in W.P(C).No.28449 of 2022. The writ petition was filed by the petitioner for the following reliefs.

¶25

“(i) call for the records leading to the passing of Exts.P8 and P15 by the 1^st respondent and quash the same by the issue of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction.

¶26

(ii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to consider on merit Exts.P6 and P14 expeditiously after affording to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

¶27

iii) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 1^st respondent to make available the information sought for by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act in Exts.P1 and P9 applications;

¶28

iv) declare that respondents 4 and 5 who functions under the office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies has to divulge the information sought for by the petitioner in the light of the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others Vs. State of Kerala and others [2013 (4) KLT 232]”

¶29

Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition

¶30

are; petitioner is a Member of Muppathadam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd., respondent No.6. While working as a Senior Clerk at the Bank, 7^th respondent - Smt. Ratnamma Suresh, contested in the Panchayat election, twice in 2005

¶31

W.A.1485/2022

¶32

¶33

and 2015, and elected as the President of Kadungallur Grama Panchayat. According to the petitioner, respondent No.7 cannot function simultaneously as a Senior Clerk, as well as Panchayat President. She availed leave without pay and allowance for the period from 2005 to 2010 and 2015 to 2019, during which period, she was functioning as the President of the Grama Panchayat, and superannuated on 31.3.2019.

¶34

Petitioner has further stated that prior to her superannuation, the 7^th respondent, in connivance with the 6^th respondent, created documents to make it appear that she had re-entered service of the Bank one year prior to her superannuation and this period was taken into account for fixing retirement benefits including Pension. The 7^th respondent has also obtained monetary benefits from the Bank during the period she was performing the duty as the Panchayat President.

¶35

The petitioner sought for various information from respondents 4 and 5 regarding the period of service rendered by the 7^th respondent from 7.5.2018 to 31.3.2019.

¶36

W.A.1485/2022

¶37

¶38

This was turned down leading to first appeals and finally second appeals before the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent passed an interim order upholding the contention raised by the petitioner that the information was available with the Registrar of Co-operative Societies having administrative control over the Bank and the information was directed to be provided by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. But, the appeals were subsequently dismissed stating that the petitioner has been making repeated applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 against the Bank and it's office bearers, with an intention to harass them and the Bank had passed a resolution to this effect. Sections 18 and 19(8) of the Act do not empower the Commission to blame any information seeker.

¶39

The petitioner had submitted numerous applications as alleged and he cannot be found at fault for having invoked the provisions of the RTI Act. The 1^st respondent cannot resort to tarnishing the image of an information seeker especially when the same is in relation to rampant corruption at the Bank where the petitioner is also a

¶40

W.A.1485/2022

¶41

¶42

Member. Hence, the writ petition has been filed.

¶43

After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for

¶44

the parties and appraising the material on record, writ court vide the impugned judgment, dismissed the writ petition,

¶45

holding thus:

¶46

“Petitioner is a member of the sixth respondent Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. having membership No.1382 and alleged to be aggrieved of the irregularities rampant at the Bank leading to disastrous consequences affecting the normal and smooth functioning of the Bank. The seventh respondent, a senior clerk of the Bank, contested election in the Panchayat and was elected as the President of the Panchayath for two spells viz., 2005-10 and again for 2015-20. In the aforementioned period, she availed leave without pay. But, before superannuation, she created certain documents to make it appear that she had re-entered in service one year prior to her superannuation which was to be effective from 31.3.2019 and fraudulently drew the salary and other allowances in the cadre of senior clerk. The said fraudulent action of the seventh respondent was taken before this Honourable Court in W.P(C) No.8634 of 2019 by one T.K.Shamsu and N.Ramachandran. Noticing the fact that there was violation of the Act and Rules, this Court directed to consider the grievance raised by the petitioners therein within four months.

¶47

The petitioner submitted an application under the Right to Information Act to the fifth respondent, State Public Information Officer & Office Inspector, Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), seeking the details of the services rendered by the seventh respondent for the period from 7.5.2018 to 31.3.2019 including the copy of the attendance register, details of the duties assigned to the individuals working at the Bank etc. vide Ext.P1. The said information was refuted by respondent No.5 vide communication dated 20.7.2021 Ext.P2.

¶48

W.A.1485/2022

¶49

¶50

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the sixth respondent Bank is legally bound to make available the information to the petitioner. In view of Ext.P3 communication dated 7.7.2021 the Public Information Officer, Office of the Assistant Registrar directed the Secretary of the Bank that the information sought is required to be complied with. The second appeal preferred by the petitioner has been rejected by the first respondent vide impugned order dated 27.4.2022 Ext.P15 on the ground that the co-operative institutions are exempted from the purview of the Right to information and moreover, the documents sought by the petitioner are not available from the records of the office of the respondents. The said action is wholly arbitrary and illegal as the State information is a creature of the RTI Act and is expected to function in tune with the Act.

¶51

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no force and merit as the petitioner being a member of the Society has an independent remedy under the Cooperative Societies Act to seek redressal for misappropriation of the funds of the Society by seeking a reference to arbitration and can summon the records and in the absence of supply of the record, can always claim the adverse inference as required under Section 114 of the Act, but cannot seek the documents in the manner and mode i.e., by invoking the provisions of the Right to Information Act. Even otherwise, Co-operative Societies are exempted from the applicability of the Right to Information Act. The first respondent Information Commission while dismissing the second appeal has rightly held that the Societies are not within the purview of the RTI Act. Not only this, even the documents are not available. The reasoning assigned by the authorities in my view are perfectly justified and do not warrant any interference to form a different opinion than the one arrived at.

¶52

The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed.”

¶53

Being aggrieved, instant writ appeal is filed on the

¶54

grounds, inter alia, as under:

¶55

W.A.1485/2022

¶56

¶57

A. Writ court ought to have found that the two statutes the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act enacted by the State Legislature and the RTI Act enacted by the Union Legislature, independent, self working statutes which work in their independent fields of jurisdiction, and ought not to have confused the two without any basis.

¶58

B. Writ court committed gross error in adverting to the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to jump to the conclusion that the appellant has independent remedies under the said Act (SCC 69 & 70 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act) and the Arbitrator under that Act has ample jurisdiction and powers to consider the grievances of the appellant under that Act and to grant him relief and therefore the application under the RTI Act is not maintainable.

¶59

C. Writ court failed to notice that the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act is not applicable and the Right to Information Act is a complete code by itself, providing for a right to file applications for information and documents and copies thereof, defining the words “information" and “right to Information", appointing officers to exercise the functions under the Act separately, conferring wide powers including even the powers vested in civil courts under the Code of Civil Procedure for the purpose of exercising such functions and providing for a hierarchy of authorities to enforce the rights created and conferred under the Act.

¶60

D. Writ court ought to have held that when new rights are created and a clear hierarchy of authorities is prescribed by the statute itself consisting of the original, the appellate and the second appellate authorities and the Act itself is intended to cover and safeguard rights specifically created under that statute, there is no question of referring to, or resorting to, the provisions of another statute for the purpose of interpreting any orders or actions taken or to be taken under the Right to Information Act, or for limiting or curtailing the same in any manner whatsoever.

¶61

E. Writ court committed gross error in not even considering or adverting to the various binding decisions of the Apex Court, and this Court and the persuasive decisions of other Constitutional Courts in India, on the interpretation scope and applicability of various provisions of the RTI Act. This is grossly arbitrary and illegal, as the learned Single Judge was

¶62

W.A.1485/2022

¶63

¶64

also bound by the dicta laid down in the said decisions.

¶65

F. Writ court committed gross error in jumping to the conclusion that the Co-operative Societies are completely exempted from the applicability of RTI Act. The said issue has been elaborately considered in numerous decisions cited before the learned Single Judge in the light of the clear definition given to the words “information", Right to Information" etc. and the duty of public officers to summon and make available the information, which they can, in the normal course of their duty, call for and peruse even from private bodies, including Cooperative Societies.

¶66

G. Writ court ought to have found that the very same documents, which were asked for and information sought for, had already been placed by the 6^th respondent itself before the authority, while functioning in their capacity as Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies under that Act during the course of adjudication of the complaint filed by the appellant himself with regard to the illegal acts committed by respondents 6 and 7 and had not only been perused and considered, but also relied upon, for rejecting the appellant's complaint, erroneously, on merits. Thus they became documents relied on by the said authority, an officer of the State to decide the complaint of the appellant against him and can no longer be said to be documents not available with the authority.

¶67

H. It is further contended that when the very same documents and information sought for under the RTI Act had been produced before the higher authorities, in proceedings between the same parties, and considered and relied upon by the higher authorities, the stand taken by the very same higher authority, while acting under the Right to Information Act, was perverse and unsustainable in law. Such an interpretation would amount to holding that the appellant is not entitled to copies of even that "information" and those “documents" which had already been produced by the 6^th respondent Co-operative Society concerned before the very same higher authorities, who is a Government officer, under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, and who had considered and relied upon this information and documents and that he can deny issuance of copies of these documents and grant of this information to the appellant/petitioner.

¶68

W.A.1485/2022

¶69

¶70

I. The conclusion of the learned Single Judge that these documents were not available is wholly baseless and highly prejudiced. As the information sought for, and the documents asked for, were clearly the documents which have to be maintained by the Co-operative Society, as part of its records, being the attendance register, the details of duties assigned to employees working at the bank, the acquittance register, details of emoluments drawn by the 7th respondent and such other details. This is all the more so when the only case of the officer and the society was not these documents and information are "private" and cannot be given to the appellant, and not that these documents and/or information are not available.

¶71

J. Writ court committed gross error in ignoring the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 232 (SC)], wherein it is held that a citizen can have access to information regarding Cooperative societies through the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. But the respondents rejected the appeal and the second appeal filed before them wrongly and illegally.

¶72

K. The Hon'ble Apex Court has further held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies functions under the Co-operative Societies Act and is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Registrar can also gather information from a society over which he has supervisory and administrative control and the Registrar can divulge details to which he has access under the Co-operative Societies Act. Though, Ext.P7 interim order was passed by the first respondent correctly upholding the contentions of the petitioner and directing respondents 3 to 5 to provide the information sought for by the appellant, surprisingly, by Ext.P8 final order, the directions issued in Ext.P7 has been nullified and adopting a diametrically opposite stand, the petitioner deprived of the information sought for by him, obviously due to extraneous reasons.

¶73

L. Writ court failed to note that the final order passed by the first respondent was diametrically opposite to, and contrary to, its own interim order where the law applicable is clearly discussed and expounded and this clearly shows that the refusal of the Second Appeal was

¶74

W.A.1485/2022

¶75

¶76

due to extraneous influences and compulsions.

¶77

M. The State Information Officer is a creature of the RTI Act and is expected to function in tune with the Act. Sections 18 and 19(8) of the Act do not empower the Commission to blame any information seeker. The appellant had not submitted “numerous” applications as alleged and he ought to have been found fault with, for having invoked the provisions of the RTI Act. The first respondent cannot resort to tarnishing the image of an information seeker especially when the same is in relation to rampant corruption at the Bank which handle public funds is therefore accountable to the generality of members as also the general public and where the appellant is also a Member.”

¶78

Heard Mr. Dinesh R. Shenoy, learned counsel for the

¶79

appellant; Mr. M. Ajay, learned standing counsel for the State Chief Information Commissioner, 1^st respondent; Mr. V. Tek Chand, learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 5; Mr. Liji J. Vadakedom, learned counsel for Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., respondent No.6; Mr. Dinesh Mathew J. Murikken, learned counsel for the 7^th respondent, and perused the material on record.

¶80

In fact, the appellant has filed an application before the State Public Information Officer and Office Inspector, Office of the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General), North Paravur, respondent No.5, seeking details regarding the services rendered by Smt. Ratnamma Suresh,

¶81

W.A.1485/2022

¶82

¶83

respondent No.7, at the Bank for the period from 7.5.2018 to 31.3.2019. In the said application, appellant has also sought for various other information, including the copy of asset register, details of duties assigned to employees working at the Bank, copy of acquittance register, details of emoluments drawn by the 7^th respondent, and such other details. The 5^th respondent, however, refused to provide the information sought for, stating that the details are not available in their records, as evident from Exhibit-P2 communication dated 20.07.2021.

¶84

The contention of the appellant is that the 5^th respondent earlier addressed a communication to the 6^th respondent pointing out the fact that even though the society does not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and other officers holding the delegated powers of the Registrar are duty bound to divulge the information, which are legally obtainable from the Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Aluva, 6^th respondent.

¶85

Even though an appeal was preferred before the

¶86

W.A.1485/2022

¶87

¶88

first appellate authority, viz., the Assistant Registrar (General), North Paravur, that was declined as per ExhibitP5 order 17.08.2021 holding that the documents are not available at present and the same will be provided as and when they are received from the Muppathadam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd.

¶89

Being aggrieved by Exhibit-P5, a second appeal was preferred before the State Information Commissioner, respondent No.1. However, the same was also dismissed by Exhibit-P8 order dated 25.04.2022 holding that the documents requested for are available only in the office of the 6^th respondent Bank and respondent Nos. 3 and 5 do not have any access to the same. Therefore, the documents need not be made available.

¶90

Though the appellant has sought for the same information from the Deputy Registrar, vide Exhibit-P9 application dated 26.08.2021, the said application was rejected stating that the documents sought for relate to administrative privilege of authority and are not public documents, and therefore, cannot be provided. Even

¶91

W.A.1485/2022

¶92

¶93

though a first appeal was preferred against Exhibit-P10 order dated 28.09.2021, it was also rejected vide ExhibitP11 order, holding that the documents are not available, and hence, cannot be provided. The second appeal preferred before the 1^st respondent was also rejected as per Exhibit-P15 order stating that the petitioner has been submitting applications against the 6^th respondent and its office bearers, with an intention to harass them and a resolution was passed against her by the 6^th respondent. It was also held therein that the 6^th respondent Bank would not come within the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶94

The case projected by the appellant is that the orders passed by the respective statutory authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005, holding that they are bound by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 232 (SC)] is not a correct approach to the issue, for the reason that the Hon’ble Apex Court in the said decision held that if the Registrar or public

¶95

W.A.1485/2022

¶96

¶97

authority is vested with powers to call for the records from the Co-operative Bank as per the provisions of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, then the information has to be necessarily provided if and when the application is submitted before the said authority.

¶98

In order to arrive at a correct conclusion, we deem it fit to consider some of the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.

¶99

Section 2(f), which defines the word “information’, and Section 2(h), which defines the words “public authority”

¶100

of the Right to Information Act, 2005, are extracted hereunder:

¶101

“ 2. Definitions .- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-

¶102

(f) " 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.

¶103

(h): "Public Authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted:

¶104

a. By or under the Constitution,

¶105

W.A.1485/2022

¶106

¶107

b. By any other law made by Parliament;

¶108

c. By any other law made by State Legislature;

¶109

d. By notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government. It also includes any:

¶110

(i) Body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

¶111

(ii) Non-Government Organisation substantially financed directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.”

¶112

It is also to be noted that the appellant has sought for information of third parties, which are controlled and guided by Sections 8(1)(j) and (11) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, which read thus:

¶113

“ 8. Exemption from disclosure of information.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen,-

¶114

xx xx xxxx

¶115

(j) information which 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:

¶116

Provided that the information which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person.”

¶117

“ 11. Third party information. — (1) Where

¶118

W.A.1485/2022

¶119

¶120

a Central Public Information Officer or a State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information:

¶121

Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party.

¶122

(2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, tinder sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure.

¶123

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under Section 6, if the

¶124

W.A.1485/2022

¶125

¶126

third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party.

¶127

(4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under Section 19 against the decision.

¶128

Reading of the above provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005, makes it clear that ultimately, it is for the authority to consider as to whether, such information can be provided to the appellant, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 2005. Whatever that be, the applications were rejected basically holding that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited supra) held that the Co-operative Banks would not come under the purview of Act, 2005.

¶129

But the fact remains, after considering the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 in depth, the Hon’ble Apex Court has arrived at the conclusion at paragraph (52) of the decision in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited supra), which reads as under:

¶130

W.A.1485/2022

¶131

¶132

“52. Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act. As a public authority, Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with the obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen under the RTI Act. Information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided Under Section 8 of the Act. Registrar can also, to the extent law permits, gather information from a Society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, Under Section 2(f), he can also gather those information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall Under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under the Cooperative Societies Act, a Registrar can call for the details of the bank accounts maintained by the citizens or members in a cooperative bank. Only those information which a Registrar of Cooperative

¶133

W.A.1485/2022

¶134

¶135

Societies can have access under the Cooperative Societies Act from a Society could be said to be the information which is "held" or "under the control of public authority". Even those information, Registrar, as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if those information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8(j) of the Act. Apart from the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, there may be other public authorities who can access information from a Cooperative Bank of a private account maintained by a member of Society under law, in the event of which, in a given situation, the society will have to part with that information. But the demand should have statutory backing.”

¶136

It may be true that the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited

¶137

supra) held that societies are not public authorities and hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information sought for by the citizen under the Act, 2005. It was also held that if there is any dispute of facts as to whether a particular society is a public authority or not, the State Information Officer can examine the same and find out as to whether the society in question satisfies the test laid down in the said judgment.

¶138

W.A.1485/2022

¶139

¶140

Anyhow Reading paragraph (52) of the decision in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited supra) makes it clear that if the Registrar or any other officers functioning under the provisions of Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 are vested with powers to call for any document from the Co-operative Societies, they are duty bound to furnish that information.

¶141

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, even the order passed by the Joint Registrar (General), District Co-operative Sangham, Ernakulam, produced as Annexure-A1 shows that the information sought by Smt. Ratnamma Suresh is available in the office of Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd.

¶142

Be that as it may, we are not going into the merits of the case, for the reason that the statutory authorities were carried away by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited supra) that they are not obligated under law to furnish the information sought for by the appellant. But, as we have pointed out above, it was made clear in paragraph (52) of

¶143

W.A.1485/2022

¶144

¶145

the decision in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (cited supra) that if the Registrar or any other designated authority or other officers under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, is vested with powers to call for the documents, they are duty bound to furnish the same. Therefore, we are of the definite opinion that the learned single Judge was not right in dismissing the writ petition.

¶146

In that view of the matter, interference is required with the judgment of the learned single Judge in W.P.(C) No.28449/2022 dated 1.9.2022. Accordingly, we allow the writ appeal and direct the primary authority to re- consider the application submitted by the appellant/writ petitioner, in accordance with law.

¶147

We make it clear that we have not expressed anything on the merits of the matter or legality of the application submitted by the appellant, especially in view of the inhibitions contained under Sections 8(1)(j) and 11 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. All the issues raised on facts and law in the application are left open to be considered by the primary authority. A decision accordingly,

¶148

W.A.1485/2022

¶149

¶150

shall be taken, in accordance with law, at the earliest, at any rate, within two months from the date of receipt of a

¶151

certified copy of this judgment.

¶152

Sd/S. Manikumar, Chief Justice

¶153

Sd/Shaji P. Chaly, Judge

¶154