Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs Murlidhar Pundlikrao Sahare and Another

Vasanti A. Naik, J.—Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Petition is heard finally at the stage of admission with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

The issue in this case is covered by the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 566/2007 on 13.1.2009. It appears from the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 566/2007, on 13.1.2009, in the case of Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Limited v. State Information Commissioner and the circular issued by the Commissioner, Co-operation & Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Maharashtra State, Pune on 8.2.2006, that the petitioner is not a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. Since the petitioner bank is not a "public authority" within the meaning Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, the State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur was not justified in partly allowing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 1 and directing the petitioner bank to supply the information and documents in the form of xerox copies within a period of 30 days. The respondent could not have sought information from the petitioner bank under the Right to Information Act.

The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 states that the respondent No. 1 can as well seek information from the petitioner bank under the provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act. If that be so, the respondent is entitled to make an application before the petitioner bank and the same may be decided by the petitioner bank in accordance with law.

In view of the judgment passed by this Court dated 3.1.2009 in Writ Petition No. 566/2007, the impugned order passed by the State Information Commissioner on 30.5.2008 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.