S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. The petitioner who appeared and represented herself in this writ petition is aggrieved by the order of the Chief Information Commissioner (“CIC”) dated 16.07.2008 whereby the petitioner’s appeal was held to be not maintainable. The CIC reasoned that Cooperative Societies are not public authorities to whom the RTI Act applies.

2. The petitioner has been a member of the Sangha Mitra CGHS (“Society”) since 1995. However, during the course of her membership, a number of disputes have arisen leading to several rounds of litigation. Amongst various allegations, she accused the Society of committing fraud, embezzlement and accounts-tampering; in this regard she had filed several RTI applications seeking audit reports and various other documents pertaining to the working of the Society as well as its accounts. She claims to have been seeking these documents by filing RTI applications since 2006, for almost 10 years. She alleges that despite several representations in this regard to the Society and the Registrar of Cooperative Societies (“RCS”) no action was taken and it is her case that the Society was committing further fraud.

3. The Society, on the other hand, has alleged that the petitioner has been continuously defaulting with payment since the inception of her membership and has made numerous RTI applications as a guise to harass it. The Society claims that the petitioner has been filing RTI applications in order to create pressure on the Society so that they do not demand outstanding dues from her or take legal action against her.

4. The first issue that arose between the petitioner and the Society was on account of cost which was to be recovered from the petitioner for the flat. The petitioner disputed the cost and the matter went to arbitration. During arbitration proceedings the petitioner was dispossessed of her flat. She approached this Court through Writ Petition (C) No. 7276/2002 in which directions were issued on 20.12.2002 for expediting her claim in arbitration. It was also observed that in case the arbitrator found that the petitioner was liable to pay the disputed amount of Rs. 1.84 lakh, the petitioner would pay it in reasonable instalments. The arbitration proceedings resulted in an award where the petitioner was held liable to pay the disputed amount of Rs. 1.84 lakh. On appeal, the Delhi Cooperative Tribunal (DCT), on 17.02.2005 upheld the arbitrator’s award. She thereafter filed W.P.(C) 7887/2005 challenging the order of the DCT. On 22.07.2005, the petitioner agreed to pay the said amount of Rs. 1,84,760 on or before 22.07.2006. Owing to her limited financial means, the Court took a lenient view and allowed the same while giving specific instructions that it was not to be taken as precedent. Despite the extension of time granted to her, the petitioner failed to pay the amount due. Due to failure of payment of money the Society was granted liberty to take action against her. She, thereafter moved two applications, one of which were dismissed on 23.11.2006 and another application for review and stay of payment of money due by her to the Society, was dismissed on 09.01.2007. During the hearing of the applications, the petitioner submitted that she would not press for extension of time and instead claimed damages from the Society for loss caused to her by the Society in different forms. She had also submitted that the Society had misappropriated amounts, which should also be investigated into and recovered. The Court, however, refused to investigate, inquire, and order payment of damages in those proceedings. This Court, on 09.01.2007, while dismissing the applications held as follows:

“… Having heard the petitioner, who appears in person, we are of the considered opinion that the applications, which are filed by the petitioner before us are misconceived. We cannot investigate, inquire, and order for payment of damages in a proceeding of this nature. If she has suffered any damages, it i