IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2010 / 11TH JYAISTHA 1932 WP(C).No. 13601 of 2010(A) ---------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------ THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY CALICUT MULTI PURPOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.JACOB RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. PRAVEEN KUMAR.M.G., MAYYANKANDIYIL, CHOOLUR, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, PUNNANROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.13601/2010 A APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 14/12/2009. P2: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY FIRST RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 15/02/2010. P3: COPY OF THE LETTER ISSUED BY PETITIONER TO THE FIRST RESPONDENT DTD. 11/03/2010. P4: COPY OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 22/03/2010. P5: COPY OF THE ORDER ISSUED BY SECOND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER DTD. 09/04/2010. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE SECOND RESPONDENT DTD. 20/04/2010. RESPPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: N I L /TRUE COPY/ P.S.TO JUDGE Kss K. SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ------------------------------------------------------------ W.P(C) NO: 13601 OF 2010 A ----------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 1st June, 2010. JUDGMENT The petitioner is a registered co-operative society functioning in accordance with the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act 1969 and the rules thereunder. The Society is not an “appropriate authority” under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The society is not receiving any funds from the Government but is funded from private sources. 2. The first respondent submitted an application Ext.P1 seeking information relating to the employees of the petitioner who were subjected to disciplinary proceedings. Since the first respondent was a stranger, the information that was sought for was declined to be furnished. Dissatisfied with the replies furnished by the petitioner, the first respondent has submitted an appeal before the second respondent, the State Information Commission for obtaining the information that was sought for. On receipt of Ext.P4, the second respondent issued Ext.P3 calling for a report with details of the documents on or before 24/4/2010. The petitioner has issued Ext.P6 letter informing the second respondent that it was not liable to furnish copies of the documents that were WPC 13601/2010 2 sought for under the Right to Information Act. The petitioner has thereupon filed this writ petition seeking a writ of certiorari to quash Ext.P5. 3. Adv. M.Ajay appears for the second respondent. It is pointed out that the second respondent is the authority under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (the 'Act' for short) to decide whether a particular authority is the “appropriate authority” envisaged by the Act. For the purpose, the second respondent is also conferred with necessary powers under Section 18 of the Act. It is submitted that the issue would be decided only after a proper enquiry, giving every opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the provisions of the Act do not apply to them. Therefore, before any decision is taken by the competent authority, it is submitted that there is no justification for the petitioner to file this writ petition. The grievances of the petitioner would be considered and appropriate orders would be passed only thereafter. 4. In view of the fact that the second respondent is the authority competent to decide the question as to whether the provisions of the Act are applicable to the petitioner or not, I do not think it necessary to consider the contentions of the petitioner on the merits. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that WPC 13601/2010 3 even after the filing of this writ petition the petitioner has submitted an affidavit detailing the nature of the organisation and funding thereof, pursuant to a request of the second respondent. In the circumstances it is only proper that the petitioner urges all its contentions before the second respondent, in the first place. I have heard Adv. Titus Mani who appears for the first respondent also. 5. In the above circumstances this writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to raise all its contentions regarding the applicability of the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 with supporting documents if any before the second respondent. The second respondent shall consider the matter after giving an opportunity to both the petitioner as well as the first respondent to put forth their contentions. K. SURENDRA MOHAN Judge jj WPC 13601/2010 4