IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 11TH MARCH 2010 / 20TH PHALGUNA 1931 WA.No. 308 of 2010() -------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.10855/2008 Dated 03/08/2009 .................... APPELLANTS/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 ADV. SRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN RESPONDENTS/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. ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON FOR R1 ADV. SRI.M.AJAY, SC, FOR R2 THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN, AG. C.J. & C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J. .................................................................... Writ Appeal No.308 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 11th day of March, 2010. JUDGMENT Raman, Ag. C.J. Challenge was against Ext.P7 proceedings of the State Information Commission directing the Society to provide the information requested for under the Right to Information Act. The contention was that Right to Information Act is not applicable to Co- operative Societies. There was yet another contention that first respondent is a contractor who undertook certain works on behalf of the Society and what he is seeking under the Act are minutes of committee meetings of the Society in respect of the contract between the first petitioner and the first respondent. Since action was threatened to be taken under Section 20 of the Act, they challenged the same inter alia contending that in view of the particular circumstances under which information has been denied, there is no scope for initiating proceedings under Section 20 of the Act. Following the decision in THALAPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK W.A. No.308/2010 2 LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (2009(2) KLT 507) the learned Single Judge observed that he is unable to entertain the first contention regarding applicability of the Act. He also found that the second contention is also without any merit. Writ Petition was eventually dismissed. However, since action was proposed to be taken under Section 20, opportunity was given to the petitioner to contend that since the position was settled by this court only in 2009, there is no wilful negation of the rights of the first respondent. 2. The question as to whether a Co-operative Society is a public authority or not was decided by a co-ordinate Bench of this court in a batch of Writ Appeals in THALAPALAM S.C.B. LTD. V. UNION OF INDIA (2009(3) KLT 1001), wherein it was held that whether a Society is a public authority or not, a disputed question of fact, has to be resolved by the authorities under the Right to Information Act and there cannot be a general decision on that point by this court. Public authority is defined under the Act and only if the Society is W.A. No.308/2010 3 substantially financed directly or indirectly by the State Government, it can be treated as a public authority. 3. Therefore, no general decision can be taken as to whether a Society is a public authority or a private Society because that will depend upon as to whether the Society is financially controlled by the State. In the absence of any such finding, we quash Ext.P7. As held by this court in the above said decision, the Society concerned can on the basis of facts and materials concerning it, take a decision and act accordingly. If the Society feels that it is a public authority, it can appoint an Information Officer under the Act and furnish information. If it thinks that it is not a public authority, it can refuse to act as directed in Ext.P10. If the matter reaches before the appropriate authority under the Right to Information Act, the said authority shall take a decision as to whether the Society concerned is a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act. Therefore, the appropriate authority under the Right to Information Act W.A. No.308/2010 4 may consider the decision, if any, taken by the Society as to whether it is a public authority or not, and render its decision after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. Writ Appeal is disposed of as above. P.R.RAMAN Acting Chief Justice C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge pms