The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of the Right To Information Act to cooperative societies and the principles of proportionality and administrative action affecting fundamental freedoms in the context of imposing penalties and taking disciplinary action.

Both the writ petitions are filed against the order passed by the State Information Commission, dated 17.3.2008. By the impugned order, the Information Commission held that the first writ petitioner, who was the Secretary of Rasipuram Teachers and Government Servants Co-operative Housing Society, Rasipuram, was to be placed under suspension and he should be relieved of his duties. Further, disciplinary action should be initiated against the other petitioner, who was working as Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), Salem for disobedience of the order of the Commission. Both petitioners were also directed to be levied with a maximum penalty of Rs.25,000/- for their conduct.

2. Pursuant to this order, the Deputy Registrar, Salem informed the two petitioners that the amount has to be recovered from their salary. In both the writ petitions, notice of motion was ordered on 22.9.2008. Pending notice of motion, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, the matter came to be listed for final disposal.

3. Heard Mr.S.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.R.Neelakandan, learned Government Advocate for second respondent and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for third respondent.

4. It was the stand of the first petitioner that he along with the other person had submitted a reply to all 33 questions. The third respondent, who was the applicant and is none other than an Ex. President of the Society, being the member of the society was fully aware of the functioning of the society. He was also suffered with a surcharge proceedings for recovering a sum of Rs.17,39,000/-. A complaint made by the third respondent was registered by the Commission. Without notice to him, the Commission had imposed penalty of Rs.25,000/-and that he had not committed any breach of the Right To Information Act. The Cooperative Society under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act cannot be held to be a "public authority".

5. In the second writ petition, the stand taken by the petitioner was that the penalty has been imposed without due notice to him and that he was not directly connected with the issue on hand. There was non compliance under Section 18(3) read with Section 20 of the Act.

6. Insofar as the contention that the Cooperative Society is not covered by the provisions of the RTI Act is concerned, it must be stated that this court has already held in A.C.Sekar Vs. The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Tiruvannamalai Circle and others reported in 2008 (1) CTC 838 = 2008 (2) MLJ 733 that co-operative societies are also covered by the provisions of the Act and there is no escape from furnishing the information sought for by any applicant.

7. With reference to the imposition of penalty and direction to take disciplinary action by the respective employer covered by Section 20 is concerned, it must be noted that the Supreme Court in Om Kumar v. Union of India reported in (2001) 2 SCC 386 dealt with the scope of judicial review over administrative action affecting fundamental freedoms. The following passages found in paragraphs 54, 59 and 68 may be usefully extracted below:

"54. Administrative action in India affecting fundamental freedoms has always been tested on the anvil of “proportionality” in the last fifty years even though it has not been expressly stated that the principle that is applied is the “proportionality” principle. For example, a condition in a licence issued to a cinema house to exhibit, at every show, a certain minimum length of “approved films” was questioned. The restriction was held reasonable (see R.M. Seshadri v. Distt. Magistrate Tanjore27). Union of India v. Motion Picture Assn.28 also related, inter alia, to the validity of licensing conditions. In another case, an order refusing permission to exhibit a film relating to the alleged obnoxious or unjust aspects of reservation policy was held violative of freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a) (S. Rangarajan v. P. Jagjivan Ram29).