IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 3RD AUGUST 2009 / 12TH SRAVANA 1931 WP(C).No. 10855 of 2008(P) --------------------------------------- PETITIONERS: --------------------- 1. THE THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THIRUVAMBADI, THRISSUR-22,REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER. 2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR-22. 3. THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, THRISSUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THRISSUR-22. BY ADVS. MR.V.G.ARUN, S.C, MR.T.R.HARIKUMAR. RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. K.RAMAKRISHNAN, MANAGING PARTNER, ENARC CONSULTANTS, MAHESWARI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR.' 2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, TRIVANDRUM-39, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. R1 BY ADV. MR.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON, R2 BY MR.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN., THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/08/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C). NO.10855/2008-P: APPENDIX PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS: EXT.P.1: COPY OF THE REQUEST DTD. 12/10/2007. EXT.P.2: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 13/11/2007. EXT.P.3: COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 14/11/2007. EXT.P.4: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 10/01/2008. EXT.P.5: COPY OF THE NOTICE DTD. 25/01/2008. EXT.P.6: COPY OF THE LETTER AND THE REPORT DTD. NIL. EXT.P.7: COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 15/03/2008 OF THE R.2. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. Prv. S. Siri Jagan, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= W. P (C) No. 10855 of 2008 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this, the 3rd August, 2009. J U D G M E N T The petitioners are a Co-operative Society and its officers, They are challenging Ext. P7 proceedings of the State Information Commission, whereby the petitioners have been directed to provide information requested for by the 1st respondent under the Right to Information Act. The petitioners challenge the same on various grounds. The first is that the Right to Information Act is not applicable to a co-operative society. The second is that the 1st respondent is a contractor, who undertook certain works on behalf of the Co-operative society and what he is seeking under the Right to Information Act are minutes of committee meetings of the society in respect of the contract between the 1st petitioner and the 1st respondent. According to the petitioners, the purpose of the request of the 1st respondent is for using the documents against the Society, which would militate against Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India. The third is that even though the information was not furnished only because of the fact that according to the petitioner-Society, the Right to Information Act is not applicable to Co-operative Societies, by Ext. P7, the petitioners are threatened with proceedings under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act. According to the petitioners, in view of the particular circumstances under which the information has been denied to the 1st respondent, there is no scope for initiating proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. 2. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 3. As far as the first contention is concerned, this Court has already held that the Right to Information Act is applicable to Co- operative Societies also in the decision of Thalapalam Service Co- operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, 2009(2) KLT 507. In view of that judgment, I am unable to entertain the first contention of the W.P.C. No. 10855/08 -: 2 :- petitioners. 4. I do not find any merit in the second contention also. If such contentions are accepted, then no information can be furnished to any person in respect of matters relating to transactions between him and a public authority from that authority. Denial of such right would defeat the very purpose of the Act. In any event, Article 20(3) which relates to giving evidence against oneself in criminal proceedings cannot be made applicable to proceedings under the Right to Information Act. 5. As far as the third contention is concerned, the remedy of the petitioners lie in taking their defence in proceedings under Section 20 as and when the same are initiated. If such proceedings are initiated, it would be open to the petitioners to contend that it is on a legal question that the information had been denied to the 1st respondent and that legal question had been settled by this Court only in 2009 and therefore there is no wilful negation of the rights of the 1st respondent in the matter. Therefore, without prejudice to the right of the petitioners to take up their contentions, if and when proceedings under Section 20 are initiated, this writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- S. Siri Jagan, Judge. Tds/