SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 881

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
NITIN JAMDAR, C.J., MANU, J.
The Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
The State Chief Information Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram - Respondent
WA No. 2105 of 2024
Decided On : 01-04-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : BY ADVS. APARNA RAJAN P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) LAKSHMI RAMADAS M.R.SABU P.DEEPAK (SR.) SREEDHAR RAVINDRAN
For the Respondent: BY ADV P.R.RAMACHANDRAN,(Party-In-Person) SRI.M. AJAY, SC SRI.V. TEKCHAND, SR. G.P.

The Registrar of Cooperative Societies has the authority to access information from a cooperative society under the RTI Act, emphasizing that 'information' includes what can be accessed, not just what is held.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Sections 2(f), 2(j), and 4 - Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 - Sections 19B, 65, and 66 - Appeal against the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner directing the Appellant Cooperative Society to furnish information to a member - The Division Bench held that the Registrar has supervisory control and can access information from the society, thus the information sought is accessible under the RTI Act. (Paras 2, 10, 26, 28)

(B) Information Access - The court emphasized that the definition of 'information' under the RTI Act includes material that can be accessed by public authorities, not limited to what is physically held. (Paras 10, 25)

(C) Exemptions under RTI Act - The court noted that certain information may be exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act, but the requested documents did not fall under these exemptions. (Paras 27, 28)

Facts of the case:
The Appellant Cooperative Society was directed to provide information regarding a construction contract and meeting minutes to a member who had filed an RTI application after being denied access. The learned Single Judge upheld the Chief Information Commissioner's order, leading to this appeal.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Registrar has the authority to access the requested information and that the Appellant Society must comply with the RTI Act.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Registrar could access the requested information and the applicability of exemptions under the RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Registrar's power to access information is sufficient for the information to be considered accessible under the RTI Act, emphasizing the broad definition of 'information' in the Act.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

Nitin Jamdar, C.J.

1. The application made by a member of the Appellant Cooperative Society under the Right to Information Act, 2005, for supplying a copy of a resolution of the Society and details of a construction contract, the State Chief Information Commissioner directed the Appellant Society to furnish the information. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the Appellant Society challenging this direction. The Appellant Society has now filed this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958.

2. The Appellant is a Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 (Act of 1969). Respondent No.4 is a member of the Appellant Society. The Appellant Society had given a contract for the construction of a building. Respondent No.4 approached the Appellant Society seeking information in respect of an agreement entered into by the Appellant Society and a Labour Contract Society and also asking for copies of the minutes of the last general body meeting. Since this was not given, Respondent No.4 filed an application on 14 January 2023 before Respondent No.3 / State Public Information Officer, under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The Public Information Officer, by order dated 15 February 2023, informed Respondent No.4 that the documents cannot be given.

Respondent No. 4 thereafter approached the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act. The Appellate Authority disposed of the appeal on 8 May 2023. Respondent No.4 thereafter filed a second appeal before the State Chief Information Commissioner, which was rejected by order dated 14 September 2023. Respondent No.4 challenged the order of the State Chief Information Commissioner by filing W.P.(C)No.37938 of 2023. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by order dated 8 April 2024. Respondent No. 4 thereafter filed an appeal before the Division Bench bearing No.729 of 2024. The Division Bench, after considering the statutory provisions, observed that the State Chief Information Commissioner, before rejecting the application of Respondent No. 4, ought to have examined whether the information sought by Respondent No. 4 will come within the scope of information which the Registrar can access in the exercise of his powers under the Act of 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder. Since this aspect was not considered, the Division Bench set aside the orders passed by the learned Single Judge and the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner, and the appeal was directed to be reheard.

3. The Chief Information Commissioner, on remand, considered the appeal and concluded that the Registrar has supervisory and administrative control over the Appellant Society. Therefore, the State Public Information Officer can ask the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies/Respondent No.1 (Registrar) to call for the information from the Appellant Society and furnish the same to Respondent No. 4. The appeal was accordingly allowed by the Chief Information Commissioner by order dated 17 August 2024.

4. The Appellant Society filed W.P.(C)No. 30694 of 2024, challenging the order dated 17 August 2024. The learned Single Judge observed that if the Registrar of Cooperative Societies can access the information sought by him from the Appellant Society, then the information has to be given to Respondent No. 4 under the RTI Act. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge found no reason to interfere with the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner and dismissed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 29 November 2024. Challenging this order, the present appeal has been filed.

5. We have heard Mr P. Ravindran, learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant, Mr M. Ajay, learned Standing Counsel for the State Information Commission, Mr V. Tekchand, learned Senior Government Pleader for the State and Mr P.R. Ramachandran, party in person.

6. The learned Senior Advocate for the Appellant Society

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top