Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2009 Date of Decision:17.05.2011 The Samana Cooperative Marketing-cum- Processing Society ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition to quash the proceedings pending before respondent No.2, initiated on the basis of complaint (Annexure P-1) by respondent No.3, under The Right to Information Act, 2005. The perusal of the record would reveal that the First Division Bench of this Court ordered the listing of the present writ petition along with Civil Writ Petition No.17972 of 2009 titled as Jullundur Gymkhana Versus State Information Commission and another, by virtue of order dated July 28, 2010. What is not disputed here is that Civil Writ Petition No.17972 of 2009 has already been decided along with a bunch of writ petitions, including the main Civil Writ Petition No.19224 of 2006 titled as The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited Versus The State Information Commission and others, by this Court vide judgment dated 09.05.2011. Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2009 2 Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered and is liable to be disposed of in the same terms of the judgment dated 09.05.2011 of this Court in The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited's case(supra), the operative part of which is, as under:- “For the reasons depicted hereinabove it is hereby held that, inter-alia, if the epitome of the facts (i) that the petitioner-Institutions cannot come into existence and function unless registered and regulated by the provisions; (ii) the control of the State Government over them, through the medium of the provisions of the indicated Acts/Rules, (iii) substantially financed by the funds provided directly or indirectly by the appropriate Government, (iv) the mandate and command of the provisions of the RTI Act; (v) their public dealing, (vi) preamble, aims, objects and regime of this Act, (vii) the larger public interest and totality of the other facts and circumstances emanating from the records, as described hereinabove, are put together, then, to my mind, the conclusion is inevitable and inescapable that the petitioner- institutions squarely fall within the ambit and scope of definition of public authorities and are legally required to impart the indicated informations to the complainants as envisaged under the RTI Act. If the contrary arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner-Institutions are accepted, then to me, it will nullify the aims and objects of the RTI Act, perpetuating and inculcating the injustice to the larger public interest in general and to the complainants in particular in this context.” In this view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed with costs in the same terms of the judgment dated 09.05.2011 of this Court in The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited's case(supra). May 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2009 3 Civil Misc.No.6393 of 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.10103 of 2009 Present: Mr.Jagdev Singh, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate, for respondent No.3. **** After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record and contents of the application, which is supported by an affidavit, the same is allowed. The order dated April 26, 2011 is recalled and the main writ petition is ordered to be restored to its original number. Let the arguments in the main case be heard, as prayed by the learned counsel for the parties. May 17, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE