Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

• The primary issue concerns the constitutional validity of Section 113(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965, as amended by the Uttar Pradesh Act 13 of 2013, which mandates that all cooperative societies in the state be covered by the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005 (!) (!) .

• The petitioners argue that the state legislature lacked the legislative competence to enact such a provision, asserting that the RTI Act was enacted by Parliament under its powers conferred by the Union List, specifically Entry 97, and that the state cannot incorporate or extend this central legislation by legislative fiat (!) (!) .

• The petitioners also contend that the incorporation of the RTI Act into the state law through S.113(2) is an act of legislation by incorporation, which requires the state legislature to have explicit competence to do so. Since the RTI Act is a central legislation, the state legislature's authority to mandate its application across all cooperative societies in the absence of specific competence is questionable (!) (!) .

• The validity of the Office Memorandum issued by the Assistant Registrar, which directed cooperative societies to designate their Secretaries as Public Information Officers, is challenged on the grounds that such an administrative directive exceeds statutory and administrative powers and infringes on the autonomy of cooperative societies (!) (!) .

• The court recognizes that the determination of whether a cooperative society qualifies as a public authority under the RTI Act is a matter to be decided by the relevant Information Commission, based on facts and the criteria established in law. The court emphasizes that these issues are outside the scope of the present proceedings and are to be addressed by the competent authorities (!) (!) .

• Ultimately, the court concludes that Section 113(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, as amended, is unconstitutional because the state legislature lacked the competence to extend the RTI Act's application in this manner. The relevant administrative directives are also quashed (!) .

• The court clarifies that the questions regarding the status of the petitioner as a public authority and the disclosure of information sought by the fourth respondent will be decided by the appropriate Information Commission, based on the facts and objections presented (!) .

• The petition is disposed of with these findings, and no costs are awarded (!) .

Would you like a detailed analysis or assistance with a specific aspect of this case?