IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 2ND JUNE 2009 / 12TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 13658 of 2007(A) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- PALA URABN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.1850 PALA REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, ANTONY JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH,AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOCHUPLACKAL HOUSE,KIZHATHADIYOOR KARA LALAM VILLAGE,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO LAW DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL SECRETARIAT, NEW DELHI. 2. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL),MEENACHIL, PALA. 6. KURIAN DEVASIA, KANDATHIL HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR KARA, LALAM VILLAGE, PALA (PEN HOUSE PALA). ADV. SRI.D.SOMASUNDARAM, ADDL.CGSC MR.I.V.PRAMOD, GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR R2-5 SRI.SATHISH NINAN FOR R.6 SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW FOR R.6 SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR R4 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO.13658/2007 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 10/04/2007 OF R6. P2 : COPY OF THE CIRCULAR NO.23/06 DATED 01/06/06 ISSUED BY R3. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------- W.P.(C.) No.13658 of 2007 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 2nd day of June, 2009 J U D G M E N T The main contention raised in the writ petition is that the petitioner, a Society registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, is a public authority, and therefore, is outside the purview of the Right to Information Act, 2005. This issue has already been decided against the petitioner by judgment of this Court in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. Union of India (2009(2) KLT 507). Therefore, the question of coverage is to be held against the petitioner. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed and it is up to the petitioner to deal with Ext.P1 application in accordance with law. The writ petition is dismissed. (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) jg