Allowed

M/s.E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom v. The Textiles Control Officer/

Madras HC23 Feb 2022WP/4253/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging direction to supply RTI information under Mandamus sought. Court relied on Supreme Court precedent holding Co-operative Societies are not Public Authorities. Held society exempt; RTI directions set aside.

What did the court decide?

Representation dated 09.12.2014 and direction to provide information under RTI set aside. Writ Petition allowed.

M/s.E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom Vs The Textiles Control… — RTI and Transparency | Madras HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.02.2022

¶3

CORAM :

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ

¶5

Writ Petition No.4253 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015

¶6

M/s.E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd Rep. by its President K.Shanmugam 248, Chellakuttipalayam Alathur Kavindapadi Erode District …. Petitioner

¶7

-Vs-

¶8

The Textiles Control Officer/Public Information Officer O/o Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles 426, Bhavani Main Road Ashokapuram Erode District

¶9

2.The Managing Director/ Public Information Officer E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd Palakattur, Athur Post Kavindapadi via Erode District

¶10

K.Vijaykrishnan …. Respondents

¶11

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from furnishing any particulars relating to affairs of the 2^nd respondent society to the 3^rd respondent as sought for in his representation dated

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

09.12.2014.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.I.C.Vasudevan For Respondents : Mr.M.Guru Prasad for R3 For R1 & R2 : No Appearance

¶15

O R D E R

¶16

Writ petition is filed seeking a Writ of Mandamus forbearing the respondents 1 and 2 from furnishing any particulars relating to affairs of the 2^nd respondent society to the 3^rd respondent as sought for in his representation dated 09.12.2014.

¶17

The 3^rd respondent has sent a representation dated 09.12.2014 seeking the particulars relating to the affairs of the society under Right to Information Act to the 1^st respondent. The 1^st respondent/ Textiles Control Officer/Public Information Officer has directed the 2^nd respondent Managing Director/ Public Information Officer of the Co-operative society to provide all the information which is sought under the Right to Information Act.

¶18

It is well settled that Co-operative Society will not fall under the purview of the definition of Public Authority as defined under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalapapalam Ser. Co.Op.Bank Ltd and another vs. State of Kerala, reported in 2013 (7) MLJ 407 (SC) has categorically held that Co-operative society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act will not fall under the purview of Public Authority and therefore they will not fall under the purview of Right to Information Act. The first Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Public Information Officer O/o The Illayankudi Co-operative Urban Bank limited and others Vs. Registrar Tamil Nadu Information Commission has further gone into the issue that the appointment of the Government officers who function as Special officer of the society will not make any difference and it will not bring the Co-operative society under the definition of public authority. Therefore, the direction of 1^st respondent to the 2^nd respondent to provide information under Right to Information Act is erroneous and the petitioner's society will not fall under the purview of Right to Information Act.

¶19

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶20

Therefore, the representation dated 09.12.2014 sent by the 3^rd respondent to the 1^st respondent and the 1^st respondent direction to 2^nd respondent to provide information under Right to Information Act is set aside as illegal and in the result, the writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. Sd/Assistant Registrar(CCC)

¶21

// True Copy //

¶22

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶23

sha/kpr

¶24

¶25

The Textiles Control Officer/Public Information Officer O/o Assistant Director of Handlooms & Textiles 426, Bhavani Main Road Ashokapuram Erode District

¶26

2.The Managing Director/ Public Information Officer E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom Weavers Co-operative Production & Sales Society Ltd Palakattur, Athur Post Kavindapadi via Erode District. +1cc to Mr.Jayaprakash Narayanan, Advocate SR.No.11943 +1cc to Mr.Guruprasad, Advocate SR.No.12428 +1cc to Mr.Vasudevan, Advocate, SR.No.12274

¶27

W.P.No.4253 of 2015 &.M.P.No. 1 of 2015

¶28

MG(CO) CB(21/03/2022)

¶29

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

M/s.E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom v. The Textiles Control Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/s.E.H.255, Nehruji Handloom v. The Textiles Control Officer/

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manitha Urimaigal Vs The Secretary

Plaza Maintenance and Vs Tamilnadu Generation and

M/S.India Pistons Ltd, Vs the Superintending Engineer

St.John Sangam Trust, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

M/S.Sun Pharmaceutical Vs Union of India

M.Muruganandham Vs The Procurement Leadar