IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 1ST APRIL 2011 / 11TH CHAITHRA 1933 WP(C).No. 7171 of 2011(V) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- THE THENNALA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.F.720, P.O. VALAKKULAM, MELE 'KOZHICHENA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM 695001. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL) MALAPPURAM - 676505. 3. ANAS VENNIYUR, THOTTASSERI HOUSE, P.O. CHULLIPARA - 676508. KUTTIKATTUPARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 4. K.P.JAYARAJAN, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, KOTTAPPALLI HOUSE, KAIPULLIKUNDU, KOTTAKKAL, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No. 7171 of 2011 ------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of April, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Third respondent, a member of the petitioner society submitted Ext.P2 application dated Nil and Ext.P2(a) application dated 14.12.2010 to the Public Information Officer of the petitioner society, the former styled as one addressed to the Public Information Officer and the latter as one addressed to the State Public Information Officer of the petitioner society. The Secretary of the petitioner society thereupon sent Exts.P3 and P3(a) letters dated 3.1.2011 and 21.1.2011 respectively informing the third respondent that the society is not a public authority within the meaning of the said term defined in Right to Information Act, 2005 and therefore the petitioner is not bound to furnish the information sought by the third respondent. The third respondent thereupon filed Ext.P4 complaint before the State Information Commission invoking the power of the Commission under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On receipt of that complaint, the State Information Commission issued Ext.P5 notice dated 22.2.2011 calling upon the petitioner to submit a reply before 22.3.2011. 2. It appears in the meanwhile, the fourth respondent had W.P.(C) No.7171 of 2011 2 filed an application before the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) Tirur seeking some information in relation to the loan availed by him from the petitioner society. The Assistant Registrar in turn forwarded that application to the petitioner society. The petitioner society did not furnish a reply. The fourth respondent thereupon filed a complaint before the State Information Commission under section 18 of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The State Information Commission issued a notice to the petitioner society which submitted a reply to the effect that upon receipt of the letter from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, the Secretary of the Bank contacted the Assistant Registrar over phone and the Secretary was then informed that the fourth respondent, the person seeking the information would come over to bank to receive the information. The Secretary also stated that the bank was ready to supply the information, on the applicant approaching the bank. The complaint filed by the fourth respondent was posted for hearing on 30.12.2010. On that day, neither the applicant nor the petitioner were present. It was thereafter adjourned to 13.1.2011. On that day also, the complainant was not present, but the Secretary of the petitioner bank was present. The State Information Commission W.P.(C) No.7171 of 2011 3 thereafter proceeded to pass Ext.P6 order dated 13.1.2011 wherein in paragraph 5, it was found that the petitioner bank is a public authority as envisaged under section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner submits that the said finding in Ext.P6 is unsustainable in law. It is contended that as the share capital invested by the Government in the society is only Rs.95,000/- it cannot be said that the petitioner is a pubic authority as defined in section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On this ground, the petitioner challenges Ext.P5 notice issued and Ext.P6 order passed by the State Information Commission. 3. Sri.P.M.Ajay, the learned standing counsel appearing for the State Information Commission submitted that it was not necessary for the purpose of deciding the complaint filed by the fourth respondent under section 18(1) of the Act to decide whether the petitioner society is a public authority or not, for the reason that in that complaint, the grievance was that no information was published notwithstanding the request made under the Right to Information Act by the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The learned standing counsel also contended that the fourth respondent was entitled to receive the information which was accessible by the W.P.(C) No.7171 of 2011 4 Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies who is admittedly a public authority and therefore the Commission could have disposed of the complaint filed by the fourth respondent with a direction to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to furnish the information. The learned standing counsel submitted that in such circumstances, as the observations in paragraph 5 of Ext.P6 order were unnecessary, the Commission will enquire into Ext.P4 complaint untrammelled by the observations in paragraph 5 of Ext.P6 order. He also submitted that the Commission will hear the petitioner and also the third respondent and take an appropriate decision in the matter. In my opinion, in view of the submission made at the Bar by the learned standing counsel for the State Information Commission the petitioner cannot have any apprehension that even if an objection is filed to Ext.P4 complaint, it will be an empty formality in view of the observations in paragraph 5 of Ext.P6 order. I accordingly dispose of the writ petition with a direction that in the event of the petitioner filing an appropriate reply in answer to Ext.P4 complaint within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the Commission shall issue notice to the petitioner and third respondent, hear them and pass appropriate W.P.(C) No.7171 of 2011 5 orders. If, on the other hand, the petitioner does not file a reply within the aforesaid period of three weeks, it will be open to the commission to proceed to dispose of the complaint without affording any further opportunity to file a reply, but after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The contentions of the petitioner and the third respondent on the merits are kept open. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.