CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Civil Writ Petition No.19224 of 2006 The Hindu Urban Cooperative Bank Limited ....Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 2. Civil Writ Petition No.19481 of 2006 The Punjab State Cooperative Bank Limited ...Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 3. Civil Writ Petition No.1835 of 2007 The Zenith Cooperative House Building Society Ltd., Ludhiana ...Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 4. Civil Writ Petition No.4790 of 2007 The Haryana State Cooperative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Limited ....Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 5. Civil Writ Petition Nos.17732 to 17735 of 2009 Bhogpur Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Bhogpur ....Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 6. Civil Writ Petition No.20690 of 2010 Sirsa District Coop. Milk Producers Union Limited ....Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 2 7. Civil Writ Petition No.21361 of 2010 The Pancham Cooperative House Building Society Limited ....Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 8. Civil Writ Petition No.4023 of 2011 The Jhajjar Central Cooperative Bank Limited ....Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission and others ...Respondents 9.Civil Writ Petition Nos.11359 to 11361, 11364, 11366, 11369 & 11370 of 2010 Gita Girls Senior Secondary School, Amin Marg, Kurukshetra ....Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Haryana and another ...Respondents 10. Civil Writ Petition No.2494 of 2011 Model School, Rohtak ....Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Haryana and another ...Respondents 11. Civil Writ Petition No.3920 of 2011 Saini Education Society, Rohtak ....Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Haryana and others ...Respondents 12. Civil Writ Petition No.16086 of 2008 Punjab Cricket Association, SAS Nagar (Mohali) ....Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and another ...Respondents CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 3 13. Civil Writ Petition No.17972 of 2009 Jullundur Gymkhana ...Petitioner Versus State Information Commission and another ...Respondents 14. Civil Writ Petition No.10876 of 2010 Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (CLTA) ....Petitioner Versus Central Information Commissioner and another ...Respondents 15. Civil Writ Petition No.16750 of 2010 The Sutlej Club ....Petitioner Versus State Information Commission and another ...Respondents Date of Decision:- 9.5.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- S/Shri M.L.Sarin & D.V.Sharma, Senior Advocates with S/Shri Anil Kshetarpal, Kanwalvir Singh Kang, Karambir Singh Chawla, Baldev Raj Mahajan, Inderpal Singh, Ashwani Bakshi, Harit Sharma, Satnam Singh Gill, Sanjiv Gupta, Subhash Ahuja and Rahul Sharma, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, DAG, Punjab, Mr.Narender Singh, DAG, Haryana and S/Shri H.C.Arora, Hari Om Attri, S.S.Chhokar, G.S.Ghuman L.M.Gulati, Davinder Kaushal, Sandeep Kumar Sharma, Parmod Kumar and Mr.John Kumar, Advocates for the respondents. Complainant Chander Bhan Saini, respondent No.4 in person in CWP No.3920 of 2011. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. As strange as it may seem, but strictly speaking, the tendency and frequency, of some of the Institutions, of not supplying and taking somersault in denying the informations, have been tremendously increasing day by day, leaving the public at large in general and the information seekers in particular, in lurch to CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 4 damage the edifice of the democracy and larger public interest. The matter in hand is a burning example of such like cases. 2. As identical questions of law and facts are involved and collectively argued by learned counsel for the parties, therefore, I propose to dispose of the instant writ petitions, by virtue of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition in this regard. Be that as it may, the facts of individual institutions, which need a necessary mention, for deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petitions, would be separately discussed at the appropriate place and stage in the subsequent part of this judgment. 3. The matrix of the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, is that the different information-seekers-private respondent-complainants (for brevity “complainants”) moved their respective applications, in all the cases, to the concerned State Public Information-Officers (in short “SPIOs”) of the petitioner- Cooperative Societies-banks-Sugar Mills-aided schools-Clubs-Institutions (for short “petitioner-Institutions”) and sought the informations depicting therein, invoking the provisions of The Right to Information Act, 2005(hereinafter to be referred as “the RTI Act”). The petitioners-Cooperative Societies, banks & Sugar Mills (at Sr.Nos.1 to 8) are registered and governed by the provisions of The Punjab/Haryana Cooperative Societies Acts (hereinafter to be referred as “the Cooperative Societies Acts”). Similarly, the petitioners-Gita Girls schools (at Sr.No.9) are also subjected to the provisions of The Haryana Education Act, 1995 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Education Act”) and Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rules, 2001 (hereinafter to be referred as “the Rules”). The petitioners-Model School, Saini Education Society, Punjab Cricket Association (for brevity “PCA”), Chandigarh Lawn Tennis Association (in short “CLTA”), Jullundar Gymkhana and Sutlej Club (at Sr.Nos.10 to 15) are regulated by the provisions of The Societies Registration Act, 1860 as CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 5 well. 4. The complainants claimed that the requisite informations were not supplied to them by the SPIOs of the petitioner-Institutions, mainly on the ground that, since they do not fall within the ambit of public authorities, so, the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to them and they are not legally obliged to supply the informations. Dissatisfied with the conduct of the SPIOs, some of the complainants filed the first appeals before the first appellate authority, but in vain and the informations were still not supplied to them by the petitioner-institutions on the same ground. 5. Aggrieved by the actions of the petitioner-Institutions, the complainants filed the second appeals before the State Information Commissions, Punjab & Haryana (in short “SIC”), inter-alia on the ground that as the provisions of the RTI Act are fully applicable, therefore, they were liable to supply the indicated informations to them. The petitioner-Institutions contested the claim of the complainants and reiterated their previous stand of non-application of the provisions of RTI Act to them in this context. 6. Taking into focus the control of the State Governments under the above mentioned Acts and Rules and the direct or indirect funds provided by the appropriate Governments to them, the SIC came to the conclusion that the provisions of RTI Act are applicable to the petitioner-Institutions and they are legally bound to provide the projected informations and accepted the appeals of the complainants, by means of respective impugned orders in this behalf. 7. The petitioner-Institutions did not feel satisfied and preferred the present writ petitions, challenging the impugned orders of SIC, invoking the provisions of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, inter-alia again pleading their main earlier stand of non-application of provisions of RTI Act to their organizations. 8. The complainants contested the pleas of the petitioner-Institutions CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 6 and filed their respective written statements. The case set up by the complainants, in brief in so far as relevant, was that since the petitioner-Institutions are governed, controlled & established under the aforementioned Acts/Rules, directly or indirectly financed by the State and they are dealing with the public at large, so, they are bound to supply the informations sought by them. It will not be out of place to mention here that the complainants have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the writ petitions and prayed for their dismissal. That is how I am seized of the matter. 9. Assailing the impugned orders of the SIC, learned counsel for petitioner-Institutions, contended with some amount of vehemence that the petitioner-Institutions are independent bodies. As they are not established by any law made by the Parliament/State Legislature or by issuance of any notification nor they are owned, controlled or substantially financed by the Governments, therefore, they do not fall within the definition of Public Authorities as defined under section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The argument further proceeds that since the provisions of the RTI Act are not applicable to them, so, they are not liable to supply the informations in question to the complainants. Hence, they prayed for acceptance of their writ petitions. 10. In support of the arguments, the learned counsel for petitioner- Institutions have placed reliance on the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in case S.S.Rana v. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Anr. JT 2006 (5) SC 186; of this Court in case Pritam Singh Gill v. State of Punjab and others AIR 1982 Punjab and Haryana 228; Kartnataka High Court in cases S.S.Angadi v. State Chief Information Commissioner, Bangalore and another 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 312; Dattaprasad Co.op. Housing Society Ltd. v. Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner and another, 2009 (5) RCR (Civil) 833; Bidar District Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Bidar v. Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore and another 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 394; Bombay High Court in cases Dr.Panjabrao CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 7 Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. The State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region Nagpur & Ors. AIR 2009 Bombay 75; Bhaskarrao Shankarrao Kulkarni v. State Information Commissioner, Nagpur & Ors. AIR 2009 Bombay 163 and Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha, Wanadongri, Nagpur v. Maharashtra State Information Commission, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur 2009 (6) AIR (Bombay) 11. 11. On the contrary and hailing the impugned orders, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents pithily urged that the petitioner-Institutions are registered under, governed, controlled and regulated by the provisions of the relevant Acts/Rules, also directly or indirectly financed by the State Government and are dealing with the public at large. Therefore, they fall within the scope of RTI Act and are liable to supply the informations to the complainants. They have also relied on the judgments of this Court rendered in CWP No.17686 of 2009 titled as “The Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited and others v. State Information Commissioner, Haryana, Chandigarh and Another, decided on 18.11.2009, affirmed by the first Division (LPA) Bench in LPA No.122 of 2010, by way of judgment dated 8.9.2010; judgment of Delhi High Court in WP (C) No.876 of 2007 titled as “Indian Olympic Association v. Veeresh Malik & Ors.” decided on 7.1.2010; Kerala High Court in case Thalapalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India & Others 2010 (1) I.D. 83, the Allahabad High Court in case Dhara Singh Girls High School, Ghaziabad v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. 2008 (4) Civil Court Cases 352 (Allahabad); Division Bench of this Court in cases D.A.V.College Trust and Management Society and others v. Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), U.T., Chandigarh and others 2008(2) S.C.T. 543; Principal, M.D.Sanatan Dharam Girls College, Ambala City v. State Information Commissioner, Haryana 2008(2) Law Herald (P&H) (DB) 1214. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, having gone through the records and legal provisions with their valuable assistance CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 8 and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petitions in this context. 13. What cannot possibly be denied that we, the people of India have constituted ourselves into a democratic and Republic Nation and are governed by the Constitution of India. India is the largest democracy in the world. The democracy requires an informed citizenry and transparency of information that are vital to its functioning. Availability of information necessary to curb the menace of corruption, which has already peeped in and is eating the civil society like parasite. The instrumentalities/authorities which meddle with public funds or with the interest of the citizens and are governed by Acts of Central or State Governments as the case may be, are required to be made accountable. In practical life, imparting of information is likely to conflict with other public interests including efficient operations of the Governments, optimum use of limited fiscal resources and the preservation of confidentiality of sensitive information. It was felt necessary to harmonize these conflicting interests while preserving the paramount status of the democratic system of the society. In order to achieve the required goal of larger public interest, the RTI Act was enacted and the object sought to be achieved is to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information. The purpose of the Act is to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. The RTI Act is a mode of access to information. What may come out ultimately could be the assurance that all is well; that ends well or should be shocking revelations which may call for appropriate action at appropriate time. Therefore, the right of access to information are species of fundamental rights referable to the freedom of speech, enumerated in the Constitution as a fundamental right. Although the implementation of the fundamental right does not require any legislation, but still RTI Act covers this regime with certain restrictions depicted therein. 14. Exhibiting the deep concern, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in cases CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 9 People's Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India 2003 (4) SCC 399; State of U.P. v. Raj Narain 1975 (4) SCC 428 and S.P.Gupta v. Union of India (1981) Suppl. SCC 87 has interpreted the democratic Republic and fundamental rights enshrined in part III of the Constitution and projected the significance of the right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom of speech, though not absolute. It was observed that the people of this country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by their public functionaries. The concept of an open government is the direct emanation from the right to know which seems to be implicit in the right of free speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Therefore, it was explained that disclosure of information in regard to the functioning of Government must be the rule and secrecy is an exception. At the same time, it was noticed that in the modern constitutional democracies, it is axiomatic that citizens have a right to know about the affairs of the Government and other public relations, which, have been elected/established by them, seeks to formulate sound policies of governance aimed at their welfare. 15. Sequelly, no one can lose sight of the fact that the RTI Act is a public statute, serves the larger public interest and public policy. The preamble, basic purpose, aims and objects of this Act, have to be kept into focus, while deciding the very controversy raised in the writ petitions. It is not a matter of dispute that the RTI Act was enacted in order to ensure transparency in the system, smoother and deep access to information and to provide an effective framework for effecting the right to information, recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution of India and to strengthen the concept of transparency and accountability in the system. 16. Likewise, it is now well settled principle of law that it is obligatory on the part of the Court to find out the intention of the Legislature from the words used in the statute by giving them the natural and ordinary meaning and the provisions of a statute have to be interpreted in the same manner as mandate and CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 10 commanded by it and not otherwise, in order to achieve the larger public interest. 17. Having so described and keeping in view the crux of the constitutional scheme and the RTI Act, to me, it would be appropriate at this stage to notice the law relied on behalf of petitioner-Institutions in this regard. In S.S.Rana's case (supra), the petitioner-workman was working as a Branch Manager in the Kangra Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.. The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, purporting to be in terms of Rule 56(b) of the said Act. The Managing Director of the society terminated his services. His appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed as well, by the High Court. It was ruled that the society has not been constituted under an Act. Its functions like any other Cooperative Society are mainly regulated in terms of the provisions of the Act, except as provided in the bye-laws of the society. Membership, acquisition of shares and all other matters are governed by the bye-laws. The terms and conditions of an officer of the Cooperative Society are governed by the rules. It was not shown that the State exercises any control over the affairs of the society for deep and pervasive control. For arriving at the conclusion that the State has a deep and pervasive control over the society, several other relevant questions are required to be considered, namely: (1) How the society was created?; (2) Whether it enjoys any monopoly character?; (3) Do the functions of the society partake to statutory functions or public functions? and (4) Can it be characterized as public authority? Therefore, on the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that the writ petition against the society was not maintainable. 18. Likewise, in Pritam Singh Gill's case (supra) this Court held that mere fact that a society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act is not an instrumentality, agency and an authority of the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and as such is not amenable to writ jurisdiction. 19. In the same sequence, in S.S.Angadi and Dattaprasad Coop. Housing CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 11 Society Ltd.'s cases (supra), it was noticed by the Karnataka High Court that since the respondent-society is not the creation of any other law made by the Legislature and is not body owned or controlled or substantially financed by the Government, so, it is not a public authority under the RTI Act. 20. Similarly, in Dr.Panjabrao's case (supra), relying upon the judgment in S.S.Rana's case (supra), it was observed by the Bombay High Court that the Cooperative Society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 is not a public authority and the provisions of RTI Act are not applicable. In Bhaskarrao's case (supra), it was ruled that as the public trust is not created by Government or Parliament and not substantively financed by Government, therefore, it is not covered by definition of public authority and it would not be bound by provisions of RTI Act. 21. In the same manner, in Nagar Yuwak Shikshan Sanstha's case (supra), no material was brought on record to prove that the Engineering College run by public trust was financed substantially by the appropriate Government directly or indirectly and mere control over fees structure, admissions, new courses etc. would not come within the definition of public authority. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that case, it was observed that the Engineering College run by public trust will not fall within the purview of the RTI Act. The same view was reiterated by the Karnataka High Court in Bidar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra). I have carefully gone through and considered the proposition of law laid down in these judgments. 22. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the conspectus of the observations, in that context, in the aforesaid judgments, but, to my mind, the same would not come to the rescue of the petitioner-Institutions in order to determine the present real controversy. Moreover, with all due respects, I express my inability to accept the view taken by the Karnataka High Court in S.S.Angadi, Dattaprasad, Bidar District Central Cooperative Bank Ltd.'s cases (supra and the CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 12 Bombay High Court in Dr.Panjabrao, Bhaskarrao, Shankarrao and Nagar Yuwak's cases (supra), inter-alia for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow. 23. At the first instance, the view taken by the Karnataka and Bombay High Courts was not approved by this Court in CWP No.17686 of 2009 titled as “The Karnal Cooperative Sugar Mills Limited and others vs. State Information Commissioner, Haryana Chandigarh and Another” decided on 18.11.2009, which was affirmed by the first Division (LPA) Bench of this Court in LPA No.122 of 2010, decided on 8.9.2010, the operative part of which is as under:- “Counsel for the appellants has relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd., Sultanpur UP vs Satrughan Nishad and others, (2003) 8 SCC 639, a decision of this Court in CWP No.6226 of 1992, Raj Pal and others vs Karnal Co-operative Sugar Mills Limited Karnal and others, decided on 11.11.1992, and a decision of the Karnataka High Court in Dattaprasad Co.op Housing Society Ltd v. Karnataka State Chief Information Commissioner, 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 833. As regards the first two decisions, they relate to the test of Article 12 of the Constitution. Thus, they are not at all relevant to determine the ambit of Section 2 of the Act where the phrase is `public authority' and not `State'. The third decision was in respect of a cooperative society which was entirely a private house building society. The allegation sought to be made was that since all cooperative societies were under the ultimate control of the Registrar Cooperative Societies, they would all be public authorities. There was no participation of the government in the said society. It was in those circumstances that the learned Single Judge held that the society was not amenable to the Right to Information Act, 2005. In our view, the present case is clearly distinguishable for the reason that here the appellant-Sugar Mill is managed by a Managing Director who is a State Civil Service Officer. As mentioned above, the appellants have divulged no information regarding the extent of financial help/investment/equity participation made by the government in the appellant-Mill. It is evident that this information if furnished may have gone against the appellants' stand. In the circumstances, no fault can be found with the judgment of the learned Single Judge and consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.” 24. Secondly, the conclusion arrived at in the judgments by the Bombay High Court is primarily based on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in S.S.Rana's case (supra), which has dealt with the determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties therein, within the meaning of other authority/ instrumentality of the State as contemplated under Article 12 of the Constitution. CWP No.19224 of 2006 alongwith 23 connected cases 13 Moreover, the view of Karnataka and Bombay High Courts appears to have been taken as if the proprietary, monetary and substantive rights of the parties were to be determined under the RTI Act, in which, the preamble, very purpose, aims, objects and the larger public interest in enacting this Act, have been completely ignored in this behalf. 25. Above-all, the deep and pervasive control as required under Article 12, is not required and essential ingredient for invoking the provisions of RTI Act. The primary purpose of instrumentality of the State is in relation to enforcement of the fundamental rights through Courts, whereas the RTI Act is intended to achieve, access to information and to provide an effective framework for effecting the right to information recognized under Article 19 of the Constitution. The complainants are not claiming any kind of monetary benefits or property from the empire of the petitioner-institutions. To my mind, the enforcement of fundamental rights through Courts and the question of applicability of writ jurisdiction on an instrumentality of the State for the purpose of determination of substantive rights and liabilities of the parties are altogether (entirely) different than that of the field of RTI Act, only meant to impart the information. Hence, in my view, the ambit and scope of phrase of instrumentality of the State