IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC TUESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2009 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 9464 of 2006(B) --------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ OOTTARA HANDLOOM WEAVER'S CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO.H.193, KAZHIVOOR P.O., REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY D. VASANTHA. BY ADVS. MR.P.B.SURESH KUMAR, MR.K.P.SUJESHKUMAR. RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. DIRECTOR OF HANDLOOMS, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. GENERAL MANAGER, DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 4. B. BALACHANRAN NAIR, VIJAYAVILASOM, NADOORKOLLAM, AMARAVILA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 TO R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER MR. I.V. PRAMOD THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2009 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 9872 OF 2006, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.9464/2006 B APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REQUEST MADE BY THE FOURTH RESPONDENT IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER DTD. 1/03/2006. P2: COPY OF LETTER SENT BY THIRD RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 4/03/2006. P3: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.NO.6208/2006 DTD. 8/03/2006. P4: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC.NO.6187/2006 DTD. 08/03/2006. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss ANTONY DOMINIC,J. ----------------------------- W.P.(C).Nos.9464 & 9872 OF 2006 -------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2009. JUDGMENT In WP(c).No.9464/06, challenge is against Ext.P2, a direction issued by the 3rd respondent, requiring the petitioner to furnish the information as sought for by the 4th respondent as per Ext.P1 application made by the 4th respondent. In so far as WP(c).No.9872/06, the challenge is against Exts.P4 to P6 where the petitioners therein have been directed to furnish the information sought for vide Exts.P1 to P4 by the 4th respondent in the case. 2. As already noticed, the petitioners in these writ petitions are co-operative societies and the primary challenge in these writ petitions is on the basis that they are not amenable to provisions of the Right to Information Act and consequently direction for disclosure of the information sought is illegal. This court in the judgment in Thalapalam Service C-operative Bank Ltd. Union of India WP(c).No.9464/06 & 9872/06 2 2009(2) KLT 507), has already repelled this contention and held that the Co-operative Societies are amenable to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and therefore the aforesaid y challenge does not survive for consideration. 3. The plea that is now raised is that even if the Societies have been held amenable to the disciple of the Right to Information Act, the direction issued by the 3rd respondent, who is also the appellate authority, is illegal. It is stated that if the applications were made to the Societies directly, the Societies would have dealt with the applications on merit and by issuing the positive direction to furnish the information, the societies have been deprived of that right. Now that the Societies are held amenable to the disciple of the Act, it is necessary that if a request made for information subject to the Provisions of the Act,the request should be considered on merit. In this case, it is seen that the 3rd respondent has forwarded the request received by him, with positive directions to the petitioners herein to disclose the information. This WP(c).No.9464/06 & 9872/06 3 deprives the freedom of the petitioners to deal with the request on merits. In my view, the petitioners cannot be deprived of their freedom to consider the application on merit and deal with the same in accordance with law. Therefore these writ petitions are disposed of directing that the petitioner in WP(c).No.9464/06 will consider Ext.P1 filed by the 4th respondent therein and the petitioner in WP(c). No.9872/06 shall deal with Exts.P1 to P3 made by the 4th respondent therein as applications directly made. On that basis these applications will be considered and dealt with by the respective petitioners in accordance with the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the needful shall be done in accordance with law. (ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE vi/ WP(c).No.9464/06 & 9872/06 4