Dismissed

Sambalpur Dist.Co-Op.Central Bank Ltd. v. Jogeswar Bhoi and Anr.

Orissa HC26 Nov 2021WP(C)/13484/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a decision by the State Information Commission that classified the petitioner cooperative bank as a public authority under the RTI Act. Relying on a prior decision in Second Appeal no.1235 of 2012, the court refused interference, noting the disposal order is subject matter of a pending appeal.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed.

Sambalpur Dist.Co-Op.Central Bank Ltd. Vs Jogeswar Bhoi… — RTI and Transparency | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.13484 of 2017

¶3

(Through hybrid mode)

¶4

Sambalpur Dist. Co-Operative Central Bank Ltd. and another

…. Petitioners

Mr.B.Sahoo, Advocate

-versus-

Jogeswar Bhoi and another

¶9

…. Opposite Parties

¶10

Mr.S.K.Dash, Advocate

¶11

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA

ORDER
26.11.2021

Order No.

08.

Mr. Sahoo, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner, it being a cooperative bank. He submits, his client has challenged decision dated 11^th May, 2017 in Second Appeal no.1235 of 2012 (Jogeswar Bhoi v. Public Information Officer and another) passed by State Information Commission. In paragraph-5 therein following was said.

¶16

“5. Accordingly, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha has submitted a report vide letter No.16466, dated 11.09.2014. In his report the Registrar, Cooperative Societies has held that SDCCB Ltd., Bargarh is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and therefore, the provisions of the RTI Act do apply to the Bank. It also transpires from the audit report of the SDCC Bank that

¶17

Page 1 of 1

¶18

// 2 //

¶19

the Bank has received Government share capital of Rs.25 lakhs as reported by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Odisha which is held sufficient to be as public authority under section 2(h) of the RTI Act.”

¶20

Government is shareholder and nothing more. As such, petitioner is not covered by meaning in clause (h) of definitions section 2 of Right to Information Act, 2005. It cannot be said that Government being a shareholder, petitioner has been substantially financed by it. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite party no.1 and submits, impugned decision is good in law. There should not be interference.

¶21

On query from Court Mr.Sahoo submits, this Bench relying on impugned decision had directed his client to furnish answers to query made by petitioner in W.P.(C) no.30704 of 2021 ( Jagadananda Patel v. State Information Commissioner, Odisha & others) . His client preferred appeal against the order before a Division Bench of this Court and it is pending.

¶22

This Court refuses to interfere since in decision is dated 11^th May, 2017 paragraph-1, following was said.

¶23

“Appellant Jogeswar Bhoi is absent but filed time petition through mail. Hard copy is attached and taken to record. Ganeswar Pradhan, PIO-cum-Assistant General Manager, office of the Sambalpur District Cooperative Central Bank Ltd., Bargarh, Bargarh District is present.”

¶24

It is clear that the bank was on notice of the decision and had accepted the same. Therefore, there was reliance in disposing of

¶25

Page 2 of 3

¶26

// 3 //

¶27

said earlier writ petition. The disposal order is subject matter of pending appeal.

¶28