1. The petitioner, a Cooperative Housing Building Society, questions the legality and validity of an Order passed on 08-04-2008, by the 1st respondent – Information Commission, constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short ‘the RTI Act’), allowing the Appeal preferred by the 2nd respondent herein.

2. The petitioner is a Cooperative Housing Building Society, registered under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 (henceforth referred to as ‘the Co-operative Societies Act’). It is formed essentially for the purpose of providing house sites to its members. The area of operation is confined to the erstwhile Medchal Taluq in Ranga Reddy District. The 2nd respondent is a member of the petitioner Society. He filed an application invoking the provisions of the RTI Act for supply of the following information:

“1) Upto date list of total members of the Society with addresses.

2) List of members who were allotted plots and registered along with their addresses.

3) List of members who paid Rs.200/- or Rs.230/- per square yard and waiting for allotment by way of lottery.”

3. Since, the same was not supplied, he preferred an Appeal to the 1st respondent, which passed the impugned Order on 08-04-2008, negativing the objection raised on behalf of the petitioner Society that it is not a Public Authority and hence, the provisions of the RTI Act, are not attracted to it. The 1st respondent has also proposed to impose a penalty of Rs.25,000/- on the petitioner and directed it to show cause in that regard.

4. I have heard Sri N. Sridhar Reddy – learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Hari Haran – learned counsel for the 2nd respondent and when the debate was thrown open for the members of the Bar to participate, Sri K. Pavan Kumar, Advocate, has also made his submissions.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Sridhar Reddy would contend that the RTI Act does not enable the information available with a private body, like the petitioner, to be furnished or made public and that the RTI Act was intended only for securing check on the activities of the Public Authorities and that it has no role to play in the matter of information either gathered or available with private bodies. The learned counsel would further submit that until and unless the body falls within the definition of “public authority” in terms of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, the right to information couldn’t be enforced against it at all. The learned counsel would further submit that so long as the affairs of the Co-operative society are run in strict conformity of the bye-laws framed by it, all decisions taken by the society and records connected therewith are purely matters of private information inter se amongst the members and hence, such information is incapable of access to by any public agency.

6. On the other hand the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent Sri Hari Haran submits that the information sought for by any applicant, under Section 4 of the RTI Act, shall be the `information’ as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The information, though may pertain to a private body or society and if it becomes accessible to any public agency, then, there is no escape from being furnished under the provisions of the RTI Act, unless one or the other of the exemptions contained in Section 8 of the RTI Act are attracted. Sri Hari Haran would further submit that the provisions of the Societies Act would unmistakably disclose the quantum of control exercised by the Public Authority, namely, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, appointed under Section 3 of the Societies Act. The moment a Public Authority has a right of access to the information relating to a society, such information, in turn becomes liable to be furnished, unless the society is able to satisfy the authority under the RTI Act about the intrinsic value of not making available the information sought for.

7. Sri Pavan Kumar would submit that the