Judgment :-

Balakrishnan Nair, J.

The main point that arises for decision in these appeals is whether the Co-operative Societies, which are the appellants in these cases, are 'public authorities', as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (Central Act 22 of 2005). Since the very same point arises in all these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

W.A.No.1417/2009:

2. This appeal is treated as the main case for the purpose of referring to the exhibits. The appellant was the writ petitioner. It was a service co-operative bank registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The brief facts of the case are the following:

The Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued Ext.P1 Circular No.23 of 2006 dated 1.6.2006 to all Co-operative Societies like the appellant, stating that all Co-operative Societies under the control of Registrar of Co-operative Societies are public authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the R.T.I. Act"). By the aforesaid circular, all Co-operative Societies were alerted of their liability to furnish information to all applicants as provided under the R.T.I. Act. The information officers of the Co-operative Department were informed that if any application is received by them, seeking information regarding any Co-operative Society, such application should be forwarded to the said Co-operative Society for providing information to the applicant. According to the appellant bank, the basic premise of the Registrar that Co-operative Societies under his control are public authorities under the R.T.I. Act is fallacious. The Co-operative Societies registered under the Co-operative Societies Act do not answer the definition of public authority under Section 2 (h) of the R.T.I. Act. So, the aforementioned Circular was issued without the authority of law. While so, the 6th respondent herein, who is a member of the appellant bank, submitted Ext.P2 application before the Assistant Registrar (General), Meenachil Taluk, Pala, requesting certain information, mentioned therein. The 4th respondent Assistant Registrar, who is the Public Information Officer under the Co-operative Department, forwarded Ext.P2 application to the appellant Society to furnish the details sought for by the 6th respondent, as per Ext.P3 letter dated 5.4.2006. It was followed by Ext.P4 communication issued by the said officer, as per which the appellant was advised to appoint a public information officer to handle the petition of the 6th respondent. In the above background, the writ petition was filed, challenging Exts.P1 and P4 and also seeking a declaration that the appellant Society is not a public authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act. The Society pointed out that any member of it can get any information concerning it under Section 103 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act").

3. On behalf of the third respondent, Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, a counter affidavit was filed in the writ petition. It was submitted that the Government contributed Rs.5,000/-towards the share capital of the appellant Society in 1964 and thereafter Rs.1,00,000/-in 1988. The said amount was fully repaid to the State by the Society only on 23.3.2006. The appellant Society was registered in 1956. The Society improved its business and reached the present position mainly utilizing the share capital subscribed by the State Government. The contention that any member of the Society can get information under Section 103 of the Act is untenable. It is only an enabling provision. The provisions of Section 103 (2) do not enable a member to get all the required information.

According to the said respondent, the appellant comes under the definition of public authority, as contained in Section 2 (h) of the R.T.I. Act. It is further pointed out that the Co-operative Societies are directly supervised and