AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.S. Sivagnanam, J.—These appeals by Co-operative Societies, registered under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, are directed against the dismissal of W.P. No. 9713 of 2012, etc., batch by common order dated 25.04.2012.
The Appellants were the Writ Petitioners. Though varied prayers were sought for in the Writ Petitions, the question which fell for consideration is whether a co-operative registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, is a "public authority" within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act". The Writ Petitions were dismissed, consequently holding that the co-operative societies fall within the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Challenging the said order, these appeals have been preferred contending that the co-operative societies is not a body, which is controlled by the Government and hence, does not fall within the definition of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Further, it is contended that the word "control" in Section 2(h) of the RTI Act relates to administrative control and not a regulatory control and the various provisions relied on by the Writ Court and the judgments referred pertain to a regulatory control and are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It was further contended that though the co-operative societies are manned by Special Officer appointed by the Government, it would not become a "public authority" to be covered under the provisions of RTI Act.
The learned counsel appearing for the Appellants submitted that the legal issue involved is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, (2013) 117 CLA 558 : (2014) 1 CompLJ 319 : (2013) 4 RCR(Civil) 912 : (2013) 12 SCALE 527 .
The learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, the first respondent in W.A. No. 2425 of 2015, while agreeing, that after the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop., Bank Ltd., and Others, (supra), the Commission has been following the decision holding that the co-operative societies would not fall within the definition of "public authority", however, he seeks to add caveat contending that there is a slight distinction, if the society is manned by a Special Officer appointed by the Government.
The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the private respondents who are the applicants under the RTI Act is also on the same lines as that of the learned counsel appearing for the Tamil Nadu Information Commission.
In the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop., Bank Ltd., and Others, (supra), appeals were filed by Co-operative societies and the question which fell for consideration before the Hon''ble Supreme Court was whether a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, will fall within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and be bound by the obligations to provide information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act. On behalf of the Co-operative Societies, it was contended that the societies are not statutory bodies and are not performing any public functions and will not come within the expression "State" within the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The State of Kerala sought to sustain the circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies by contending that the Registrar has got all pervasive control over the societies with power to supersede the management of the society and to appoint an Administrator and this would indicate that though the societies are body corporates, they are under the statutory control of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Co-operative Societies registered under the provisions of the Kerala Act, which are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central Government or formed, established or constituted by law made by Parliament or State Legislature, were not subject matter of consideration. In other words, the appeals related to cases pertaining to Co-operative Societies which do not fall in the above mentioned categories.
On the first issue with regard to Co-operative Societies and Article 12 of the Constitution, the Hon''ble Supreme Court pointed out that a clear distinction can be drawn between a body which is created by a statute and a body much after having come into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of a statute and the societies which were subject matter of the appeals were held to fall under the later category, i.e., governed by the Kerala Societies Act and not statutory bodies, but only body corporate within the meaning of Section 9 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. After referring to several decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, it was held that the said societies which were subject matter of those appeals will not fall within the expression ''State'' or ''instrumentally of the State'' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
On the next issue relating to Constitutional provisions and Co-operative autonomy, it was held that co-operative societies are not treated as unit of self Government like Panchayat and Municipalities. The Hon''ble Supreme Court then proceeded to examine the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the effect of words "substantially financed" and the restrictions and limitations, which could be imposed in the larger public interest and held that the co-operative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will not fall within the definition of "public authority" as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
In the light of the above, we have no hesitation to hold that the legal issue arising in these appeals are squarely covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop., Bank Ltd., and Others, (supra). The distinction sought to be drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent stating that the provisions of the RTI Act would be applicable to cases where the Government Officers are appointed to function as Special Officers of the society, when there is no elected Board of Directors, could hardly make any difference in the light of the recent pronouncement of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that for all the societies, elections were conducted and the societies are managed by the elected members.
In the light of the above, following the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop., Bank Ltd., and Others, (supra), these Writ Appeals are allowed and the orders passed in the Writ Petitions are set aside. No costs.