IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a proper analysis by the 1st respondent to determine whether the information sought by the appellant could be accessed by the Joint Registrar under the Co-operative Societies Act and whether it fell within the exempted categories under Section 8 of the RTI Act.

JUDGMENT :

S. Manu, J.

The petitioner in W.P.(C)No.37938/2023 has come up in this appeal aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition by learned Single Judge. The appellant sought the following information under the Right to Information Act regarding the 6th respondent Co-operative Society from the State Public Information Officer of the Office of the 2nd respondent by Ext.P1 application:-

a) Copy of construction agreement between Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank and the construction agency viz the “Ooralungal Labour Co-operative Society”.

b) Copy of the minutes of last general body meeting of above said Bank.

2. By Ext.P2 he was informed by the Public Information Officer that the copy of the minutes is not available in the office of the Joint Registrar (General). Copy of the reply received from the Bank to the communication issued by the Public Information Officer, as well as the communication to the Bank were also furnished along with Ext.P2. The appellant submitted Ext.P3 appeal under Section 19 of the RTI Act which evoked no response according to him. Therefore, he submitted Ext.P4 second appeal to the 1st respondent. The said appeal was rejected by Ext.P5 order dated 14.9.2023.

3. In the writ petition the petitioner prayed for setting aside Ext.P5 order issued by the 1st respondent and also for a direction to the 1st respondent to re-hear the second appeal. Apart from these, various other reliefs were also sought. Sixth respondent Co-operative Bank filed counter affidavit opposing the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the petitioner and the respective learned counsel appearing for the respondents, dismissed the writ petition.

4. Before us the appellant appeared as party in person. Sri.P.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appeared for the 6th respondent Co-operative Bank. Learned Standing Counsel Sri.M.Ajay appeared for the 1st respondent. We have heard the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents extensively.

5. Sri.P.R.Ramachandran, the appellant made submissions effectively. He relied on the judgment in W.A.No.1484/2022 which was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in a previous round of litigation wherein he was the appellant and the 6th respondent Society was the contesting respondent. He also made reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala [(2013)16 SCC 82]. The appellant also referred to various provisions of the RTI Act and contended that the impugned order is not legally sustainable. He argued that the information he had sought in Ext.P1 is available with the office of the Joint Registrar. He also submitted that even if it is assumed that the said information was not available with the said authority, the authority was bound to obtain the same from the 6th respondent Society and to provide it to him. Specifically referring to the definition of 'Information' in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the appellant submitted that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority also falls within the definition and therefore the Public Information Officer was expected to access the information and provide the same to him. He further submitted that the provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 render vast powers to the Registrar and other authorities of the Department to exercise control over the societies and to supervise the functioning of the societies. Hence, according to him, seeking information of any nature from the Co-operative Societies is well within the authority of the Registrar and other higher officials. He also contended that the society has wrongly claimed that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1484/2022 has no application to the present case as the core issue has already been decided in the said judgment. He therefore prayed that the judgment of the learned Single Judge may be set aside and the reliefs sought in the