Point of Law: Power of Public authority - Cooperative Societies were duly registered under Act of 1960 - Authority under Act of 1960 could get audit done and also conduct enquiry into irregularities - Hence when information was sought from an authority like Registrar or his subordinates under Act of 1960 same was liable to be supplied.

JUDGMENT :

A.S. Chandurkar, J.

These Letters Patent Appeals can be decided together as similar points arise for adjudication therein.

The direction issued by the State Information Commissioner, Amravati to the Assistant Registrar, Cooperative Societies to procure information sought by the respondent No.3 from the appellant-Society was challenged by filing writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the learned Single Judge. By the judgment under appeal the learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition by holding that the Assistant Registrar under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act of 1960) was obliged to provide such information as a public authority exercising powers under the Act of 1960 by procuring the same from the appellant-Society.

2. For sake of convenience the facts arising in Letters Patent Appeal No.248/2011 are being referred to.

On 10/07/2009 the respondent No.3 sought information under provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) from the Co-operative Society. The Co-operative Society through its Information Officer did not supply the requisite information on the ground that the provisions of Act of 2005 were not applicable to it. The respondent No.3 therefore filed an appeal before the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies who by his order dated 27/08/2009 directed the Society to supply the information sought by the respondent No.3 and allowed the appeal. The respondent No.3 however preferred a Second Appeal before the State Information Commission and by the order dated 23/06/2010 the State Information Commissioner held that by exercising authority under the Act of 1960, the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies could obtain relevant information from the Society and that information could be supplied to the respondent No.3. By directing that the same be done within a period of four weeks, the Second Appeal was disposed of. An application for review preferred by the Society came to be rejected on 20/09/2010. These orders were the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition filed by the Society. The learned Single Judge held that the Society was not a “public authority” within the meaning of the Act of 2005. However in view of the fact that it was statutorily possible for the Assistant Registrar to obtain “information” as provided for in Section 2(f) of the Act of 2005 from the Society, the learned Single Judge felt that there was no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Information Commissioner in that regard. As stated above similar orders were passed in connected writ petitions thus giving rise to these appeals.

3. Shri P. B. Patil, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in view of the fact that the Society was not a public authority as defined by Section 2(h) of the Act of 2005 there was no justification on the part of the Assistant Registrar to seek information from the Society and supply the same to the respondent No.3. The Society was not substantially financed or controlled by the appropriate Government and it could not be compelled to supply information under the Act of 2005. The provisions of Section 2(f) could not be interpreted to mean that such information that could be accessed by the Assistant Registrar could be supplied to the applicant under the Act of 2005. On these grounds the impugned judgment was liable to be set aside. The learned counsel for the appellant however fairly brought to the notice of the Court the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service cooperative Bank Limited and ors. vs. State of Kerala and ors. (2013) 16 SCC 82 wherein, in the context of Co-operative Societies in the State of Kerala, it was held that the Registrar could gather information from a Co-operative Society to the extent permitted by law and supply the same to the person seeking such information under the Act of 2005. He also submitted that th