IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 14TH DECEMBER 2010 / 23RD AGRAHAYANA 1932 WP(C).No. 34761 of 2010(U) -------------------------- PETITIONER: --------------- PALAKUZHA SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.E 81, PALAKUZHA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM (VIA) ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY-IN-CHARGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.R.KIRAN RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER, UNDER THE RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT, KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 039. 2. SHAJU JACOB, S/O.JACOB, KURISSINGAL HOUSE, MARIKA P.O., PALAKUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN - 682 315. ADV.SRI.M.AJAY -SC FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 34761 of 2010(U) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 20.4.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.5.2009 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2nd RESPONDENT. EXT.P3 : COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 11.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT BEFORE THE PETITIONER. EXT.P4 : COPY OF THE APPLICATION DATED 24.6.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE 2nd RESPONDENT BEFORE THE 1st RESPONDENT. EXT.P5 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 8.7.2009 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT. EXT.P6 : COPY OF THE REPORT DATED 18.7.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 1st RESPONDENT. EXT.P7 : COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 4.11.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT. //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE skj C.T.RAVIKUMAR, J. --------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.34761 of 2010 ----------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed by the Palappuzha Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. No.E 81 which is a society registered under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, mainly with the prayer to issue a writ of certiorari to quash all further proceedings pursuant to Exts.P5 and P7 notices issued by the respondent based on Ext.P1 application filed by the 2nd respondent, in the light of a Division Bench of this Court in Thalapalam Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009(3)KLT 1001. Ext.P7 notice is essentially a notice calling upon the petitioner to furnish necessary materials for the purpose of enabling the first petitioner to take a decision as to whether the society falls under the definition of ‘public authority’ in terms under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. In terms of the Division Bench judgment in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank’s case (Supra) when the first respondent is called upon to decide the said issue the issue has to be W.P.(C).No.34761/2010 : 2 : decided with notice to the party. In fact, it is in tune with the said decision that Ext.P7 notice has been issued to the petitioner. Admittedly pursuant to receipt of the Ext.P7 notice from the first respondent the secretary of petitioner bank has appeared before the first respondent and produced all the relevant materials required to be produced. After Ext.P7 a further notice requiring production of certain other documents was also issued by the first respondent. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, on its receipt further documents were also produced before the first respondent and thereafter hearing was also conducted on 07.12.2010. Thus, it is obvious that pursuant to Ext.P7 documents were produced before the first respondent and subsequently, hearing was also conducted on the issue to decide the question whether the petitioner's society falls under the definition under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. The said action on the part of the first respondent is certainly, in tune with the directions of this Court in the decision reported in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2009(3) KLT 1001. In the said circumstances this W.P.(C).No.34761/2010 : 3 : writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to pass final orders on the above, issue in accordance with law. Needless to say that the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge such order, if it is adverse to the petitioner in appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE skj