The main legal point established in the judgment is that the control exercised by the State Government over Cooperative societies under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 makes them a 'public authority' within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act.

1. The only question arises in these five writ petitions is whether a Cooperative Society registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 is a “public authority” within a meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short RTI Act)?

2. The first writ petition in W.P.No.9763 of 2008 is filed by Rasipuram Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. The other four writ petitions were filed by Illayankudi Cooperative Urban Bank Limited. In the first writ petition, initially the challenge was to the order passed by the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies dated 25.02.2008. By the aforesaid order, the first respondent acting as an appellate authority under the RTI Act had directed the petitioner bank to provide information to the third respondent who is an Advocate. That writ petition was admitted on 22.04.2008. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted.

3. In the second writ petition (W.P.No.24746 of 2009), initially, the challenge was to the order of the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, dated 16.11.2009, wherein and by which the Information Commission had overruled the petitioner Bank’s objection that they are not the public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and held that the Cooperative society was controlled by the Special Officer appointed by the State Government. Therefore, it will come within the purview of the Act. That writ petition was admitted on 1.7.2010. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was also granted.

4. The third writ petition, i.e., W.P.No.16041 of 2010, challenges the notice issued by the Tamil Nadu Information Commission overruling their objection about non coverage under the RTI Act and directed them to appear for an enquiry. That writ petition was admitted on 26.7.2010. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. The last two writ petitions (W.P.Nos.17738 and 17739 of 2010) were filed once again challenging the notices of enquiry dated 23.7.2010 issued by the Commission. Both writ petitions were admitted on 11.8.2010 and directed to be posted along with the previous writ petitions filed by the same society. Pending writ petitions, an interim stay was granted. Subsequently, all interim orders were confirmed on 20.04.2012 and the main matters were directed to be posted for hearing. It was at this stage, the petitioners came up with applications to amend the prayer in all writ petitions, praying for a declaration that the petitioners’ societies are not “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. Those amendments were ordered on 25.4.2012.

5. Heard the arguments of Mr.R.Muthukumaraswamy, learned Senior Counsel leading Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, learned counsel appearing for petitioners societies, Mr.E.M.S.Natarajan, learned Government Advocate appearing for the authority under the Cooperative Societies Act, Mr.R.Nalliappan, learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent in W.P.No.9763 of 2008, Mr.R.Venkatavaradan, learned counsel for third respondent in W.P.No.24746 of 2009 and Mr.Vivek Sriram for M/s.G.R.Associates, learned counsel appearing for first respondent in W.P.No.24746 of 2009 and for contesting respondents in other three writ petitions.

6. Since the prayer is for declaration that the societies are not covered under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, it is necessary to extract Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, which reads as follows:

“(h) ‘public authority’ means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted—

(a) by or under the Constitution;

(b) by any other law made by Parliament;

(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;

(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;

(ii) non-government organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;” (Emphasis added)

7. Already this court in its judg