Trivandrum District Handloom Co-op. Societies Association vs Public Information Officer

K. Vinod Chandran, J.—The petitioners are aggrieved by Ext. P4 notice, issued under the Right to Information Act, 2005 by the Public Information Officer, who is the 1st respondent in W.P.(C) No. 10952 of 2010 and the 2nd respondent in W.P.(C) No. 23357 of 2012 herein.

Admittedly there was a dispute as to whether the Co-operative Societies would be covered under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for brevity, ''the RTI Act''), which has now been resolved by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, by the decision reported in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and Others Vs. State of Kerala and Others, . The Supreme Court, while finding that the societies would not be covered under the enactment, had provided a rider, insofar as the societies owned and controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the appropriate Government.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam S.C.B. Ltd. (supra) found that the Registrar of Co-operative societies is a public authority coming within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and has been conferred with a lot of statutory powers under the RTI Act. The obligation of the Registrar to comply with the provisions that the RTI Act was emphasized. It was also found that the Registrar can to the extent law permits gather information from a society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for brevity, ''the KCS Act). But, however, the Registrar was found to be not obliged to disclose such information, under Section 8(i)(j) of the RTI Act and only those information, which the Registrar would have had access under the KCS Act, alone was held to be information, which is held or under the control of the public authority.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court also while holding with the Co-operative societies registered under the KCS Act, will not fall within the definition of public authority. On the binding observations with respect to the obligation of the Registrar to comply under the RTI Act and the observations with respect to Co-operative societies substantially controlled and financed by the Government coming under the directions and purview of the RTI Act. It has to be held that the Public Information Officer, appointed under the RTI Act, in the co-operative department would exercise the powers under the RTI Act, insofar as the decision as to whether a society is substantially and functionally controlled by the Government.

However, only after such decision, if the Co-operative society be directed to furnish information, with respect to the societies, who are the petitioners herein, the Registrar is the director of District Industries Centre as such powers are conferred by the Government by notification. The Public Information Officer, who is the respondent herein, is an officer appointed under the RTI Act in the District Industries Centre. The Public Information Officer, who is so appointed under the RTI Act, would definitely be competent to call for information from the societies and finds that the societies are substantially and functionally controlled by the Government.

The societies, who are summoned and who are directed to disclose information if raises an objection with respect to there being out of the purview of the RTI Act, necessarily, the Public Information Officer would have to consider the same, which fact would have to be substantiate by the person, who is seeking the information. It is not discernible as to what complaint on query, the society was called for herein.

In such circumstance, the writ petitions are disposed of directing that if at all notices are issued by the Public Information Officer and the society raises an objection with respect to it not been coming within the purview of the RTI Act. The Public Information Officer shall first decide on the same and only then to direct the societies to disclose information under the RTI Act. Needless to say that such orders passed by the Public Information Officer would be subject to the hierarchy of authorities as provided under the RTI Act. In W.P.(C) No. 23357 of 2012, also the Public Information Officer has sought for some information from the petitioner society and the same also would be governed by the observations made herein above.

Writ petitions disposed of with the above observations. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.