IMPORTANT POINT
All Cooperative societies are not public authorities.

Headnote:(a) Constitution of India - Article 12 - Instrumentalities of State - Co-operative Societies - Distinction between a body created by statute and a body governed in accordance with a statute after coming into existence - Final authority in case of later is governing body and not Registrar - Similarly its property vests in governing body and not Registrar - State not exercising deep and pervasive control - Such societies not State within meaning of Article 12. (Para 15, 17 and 18)
        (1999) 1 SCC 741; (1989) Supp 1 SCC 205; (1976) 2 SCC 58; (2003) 10 SCC 733 - Relied upon
        (b) Constitution of India - Articles 19(1)(c) (79th Amendment) and 243ZH to 243ZT - Right to form cooperative society - Fundamental right - Not to be treated as units of self-government - Societies having no financial assistance from government in any form - Board of such societies cannot be superseded or suspended (Para 20 to 22)
        (c) Interpretation of statutes - 'Means' and 'includes' - Use of only word 'means' - Definition is prima facie restrictive - Word 'include' makes the definition extensive - Use of both "means" and "includes" - Definition becomes exhaustive. (Para 27)
        (2011) 2 SCC 54 - Relied upon
        (d) Interpretation of Statutes - Section 2(h)(d)(i), RTI Act, 2005 - Expression "body owned, controlled or substantially financed" - The context being 'body owned' and 'substantially financed', the 'control' should also be substantive to be covered under RTI Act. (Para 35)
        AIR 1966 SC 447; (1979) 2 SCC 34; (1981) 2 SCC 714; (1972) 4 SCC 600; (1974) 2 SCC 498; (1999) 3 SCC 396; (2002) 4 SCC 524; (1976) 2 SCC 977; (1998) 3 SCC 72; (1985) 4 SCC 628; (2002) 8 SCC 481; (2004) 1 SCC 126; (1948) 1 All ER 1, 11 (HL) - Relied upon
        (e) Interpretation of Statutes - Legislative intention - Language employed is determinative factor - Clear, plain and unambiguous words of a statute - Susceptible to only one meaning - Courts bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences - Courts not entitled to usurp the legislative function under the guise of interpretation. (Para 42)
        (1951) 2 All ER 839(HL); AIR 1957 SC 907; (1977) 2 SCC 273; (2001) 4 SCC 139; (2001) 7 SCC 358; (2002) 3SCC 533; (2004) 6 SCC 672 - Relied upon
        (f) Constitution of India - Article 19 - Right to information - Is facet of freedom of speech - Is a fundamental right - However, not available against any and all organizations - Applicability subject to restrictions imposed by the Article. (Paras 44 and 45)
        (1972) 2 SCC 788; (2002) 5 SCC 294; (1975) 4 SCC 428; (2003) 4 SCC 399 - Relied upon
        (g) Constitution of India - Article 21 - Right to privacy - Fundamental right emanating from Article 21 - Not available without restriction. (Para 46)
        AIR 1963 SC 1295; (1994) 6 SCC 632; (1997) 1 SCC 301; (2008) 13 SCC 5 - Relied upon
        (h) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 8 - Supply of information - Right to privacy - Public interest - Important factor. (Paras 49 and 50)
        1927 (277) US 438; (2013) 1 SCC 212 - Relied upon
        (i) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h) - Instant Cooperative societies - Not public authorities - Not obliged to furnish any information under the Act. (Para 51)
        (j) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h), 2(f) and 8 - Registrar Cooperative Societies - Public authority - Can call for information from cooperative societies under his control and furnish the same under the Act - But subject to limitations u/ss 2(f) and 8. (Paras 50 and 52)
       Facts of the case:
        The question that arises in this case is whether a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 will fall within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and be bound by the obligations to provide information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act.
       Finding of the Court:
        The Cooperative societies involved in this case are not public authorities I terms of section 2(h) of RTI act. Hence not obliged to furnish information. Registrar also not obliged to call for and furnish information unless in public interest.
       Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgment :-

K.S. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question whether a co- operative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (for short “the Societies Act”) will fall within the definition of “public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short “the RTI Act”) and be bound by the obligations to provide information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act.

3. A Full Bench of the Kerala High Court, in its judgment reported in AIR 2012 Ker 124, answered the question in the affirmative and upheld the Circular No.23 of 2006 dated 01.06.2006, issued by the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, Kerala stating that all the co-operative institutions coming under the administrative control of the Registrar, are “public authorities” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and obliged to provide information as sought for. The question was answered by the Full Bench in view of the conflicting views expressed by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Writ Appeal No.1688 of 2009, with an earlier judgment of the Division Bench reported in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Union of India AIR 2010 Ker 6, wherein the Bench took the view that the question as to whether a co-operative society will fall under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act is a question of fact, which will depend upon the question whether it is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the State Government which, the Court held, has to be decided depending upon the facts situation of each case.

4. Mr. K. Padmanabhan Nair, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the societies submitted that the views expressed by the Division Bench in Thalapalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) is the correct view, which calls for our approval. Learned senior counsel took us through the various provisions of the Societies Act as well as of the RTI Act and submitted that the societies are autonomous bodies and merely because the officers functioning under the Societies Act have got supervisory control over the societies will not make the societies public authorities within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Learned senior counsel also submitted that these societies are not owned, controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the State Government. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the societies are not statutory bodies and are not performing any public functions and will not come within the expression “state” within the meaning under Article 12 of the Constitution of India.

5. Mr. Ramesh Babu MR, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the reasoning of the impugned judgment and submitted that such a circular was issued by the Registrar taking into consideration the larger public interest so as to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every co-operative society in the State of Kerala. Reference was also made to various provisions of the Societies Act and submitted that those provisions would indicate that the Registrar has got all pervading control over the societies, including audit, enquiry and inspection and the power to initiate surcharge proceedings. Power is also vested on the Registrar under Section 32 of the Societies Act to supersede the management of the society and to appoint an administrator. This would indicate that though societies are body corporates, they are under the statutory control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Learned counsel submitted that in such a situation they fall under the definition of “pubic authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Shri Ajay, learned counsel appearing for the State Information Commission, stated that the applicability of the RTI Act cannot be excluded in terms of the clear provision of the Act and they are to be interpreted to achieve the object and purpose of the Act. Learned couns