IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH OCTOBER 2011 / 27TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 19532 of 2011(N) ------------------------------------------ PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, PUNNEN ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 685 001. 2. ABDUL AZEEZ P.A., O/O.ADVOCATE HANSALAH MUHAMMED, IST FLOOR, INDIAN COFFEE HOUSE BUILDING, CENTRAL JUNCTION, PATHANAMTHITTA - 689 645. R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN R2 BY ADV. SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/10/2011,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.19532/2011 N APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE REQUISITION MADE BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT DTD. 22/09/2010. P2: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE BANK DTD. 11/10/2010. P3: COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DTD. 27/05/2010. P4: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT PREFERRED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. P5: COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 22/11/2010. P6: COPY OF THE WRITTEN NOTES OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE GENERAL MANAGER OF THE BANK DTD. 04/12/2010. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 30/04/2011. P8: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT DTD. 02/05/2011. P9: COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN WP(C) NO.21550 OF 2010. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P(C).No.19532 of 2011 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT Ext.P8 order passed by the State Information Commission on a complaint filed by the second respondent herein is under challenge in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner society is not a public authority as defined in the Right to Information Act, 2005. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. Union of India, 2009 (3) KLT 1001 it is contended that as the petitioner society is not substantially financed or controlled by the State Government, the Right to Information Act, 2005 has no application. Yet another contention is that none of the contentions raised by the petitioner have been considered and that Ext.P8 is a cryptic order. 2. When the writ petition came up for hearing today, Sri.M.Ajay, learned standing counsel appearing for the State Information Commission, submitted that the State Information Commission will examine the complaint submitted by the second W.P(C).No.19532 of 2011 -:2:- respondent afresh, consider the objections which the petitioner may put forward in writing and pass an order giving reasons in support of its findings and conclusions. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent did not oppose the said submission. In such circumstances I allow the writ petition, set aside Ext.P8 order and direct the State Information Commission to consider the complaint filed by the second respondent afresh with notice to the petitioner and the second respondent and pass appropriate orders thereon giving reasons in support of its findings and conclusions. It will be open to the petitioner to put forward its objections in writing before the State Information Commission. The contentions of both sides on the merits are kept open. P.N.RAVINDRAN, Judge. ahg. P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. --------------------------- W.P(C).No.19532 of 2011 ---------------------------- JUDGMENT 19th October, 2011