2026 Supreme(Mad) 1155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
V. Lakshminarayanan, J.
P.Jothibasu - Petitioner 
Versus 
The Commissioner, State Information Commission - Respondent
WP No. 40146 of 2025
Decided On : 22-04-2026

Apex co-operative societies under state law, subject to government's direct managerial, financial, and regulatory control including legislative audit, qualify as 'public authority' under RTI Act Section 2(h), unlike primary societies with mere regulatory oversight.

Headnote:(A) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Section 2(h) - Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 - Sections 2(5), 33, 52-63, 80(9) - Apex co-operative society at state level, with government appointing managing director, nominating functional directors, providing substantial financial aid through partnership funds, subjecting audit to legislative assembly, and exercising pervasive managerial, administrative, financial and regulatory control, held to be 'public authority' under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act - Distinguished from primary co-operative societies where government control is merely regulatory - Prior orders denying information on ground that co-operative societies not public authorities quashed; direction issued to furnish information sought under RTI within four weeks. (Paras 16-46, 61, 73, 78, 82)

(B) Right to Information Act, 2005 - Interpretation of 'control' under Section 2(h) - Control must be substantial, direct, structural and determinative, not merely regulatory or supervisory as in primary societies - Financial participation via share capital, statutory funds, indemnity provisions, and government oversight distinguish apex bodies - Subsidies or incidental funding insufficient to establish substantial financing. (Paras 10, 37, 60, 67)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner sought details under RTI regarding procurement of fertilizers, organic manure, bio-stimulants etc. by apex co-operative marketing federation from 2021-2023, including suppliers, tender methods, quality testing, pricing comparisons and compliance with regulations. Public Information Officer denied information citing prior judgments holding co-operative societies outside RTI purview. First and second appeals dismissed by appellate authority and State Information Commission on ground of insufficient state control and reliance on precedents concerning primary societies.

Findings of Court:
Impugned order of State Information Commission quashed. Apex society held 'public authority' under RTI Act due to extensive government control. Direction issued to furnish all sought information within four weeks.

Issues: Whether apex co-operative society qualifies as 'public authority' under Section 2(h) RTI Act given statutory framework distinguishing it from primary societies; applicability of precedents on primary societies to apex bodies; whether information sought exempt under Section 8 RTI Act.

Ratio Decidendi: Apex societies under state co-operative act subject to government appointment of key officials, financial aid mechanisms, legislative audit, and cadre rules constitute 'public authority' due to substantial control - Precedents on primary societies inapplicable as they lack comparable direct governmental involvement; transparency mandates disclosure absent Section 8 exemptions.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. rti application denied; appeals dismissed by sic. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. tanfed claims not public authority under thalappalam. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. tanfed structure shows government-linked shareholders. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. tncs act distinguishes apex societies with state control. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32)
5. state aid, audit, cadre control over apex societies. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
6. rules mandate government oversight of apex management. (Para 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45)
7. thalappalam history: primary societies not public authorities. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58)
8. thalappalam inapplicable to controlled apex societies. (Para 59 , 60 , 61)
9. iffco differs; subsidies not substantial financing. (Para 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67)
10. primary tn co-ops exempt; apex under state control. (Para 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73)
11. regulatory transparency trumps exemption claims. (Para 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
12. tanfed is public authority; quash order, disclose info. (Para 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83)

ORDER :

V. Lakshminarayanan, J.

1.The petitioner impugns the order of the 1^st respondent, wherein the 1^st respondent came to a conclusion that the activities of the Tamil Nadu Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited [hereinafter referred to as TANFED] do not constitute public work at large, and it is not a body or an institution that constitutes a public authority within the Right to Information Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as RTI Act] and sufficient materials had not been produced before it to establish the degree of control that the State of Tamil Nadu has over TANFED. Consequently, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner invoking Section 19 (3) of the RTI Act came to be dismissed.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the RTI Act on 02.05.2023 seeking certain information from the 3rd respondent. The information that the petitioner sought are as follows:

(1) I request to give me the details of varieties of fertilizers procured by the Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation.

(2) I request you to provide me a copy of the list of organizations from which Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation is procuring fertilizers in a proper format.

(3) I request you to provide me the details as to which organizations/ companies / suppliers the Organic Manure, Bio- stimulant, Plant Growth Regulator, Neem Cake Bio Fertilizer and Nutrient fertilizers were procured by the Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation from April 2021.

(4) Give me details of the method of tender guidelines for procurement of Organic Manure, Bio-stimulant, Plant Growth Regulator, Neem Cake Bio Fertilizer and Nutrient fertilizers whether fixed contract (or) empanelment tender or in which way were called for.

(5) In case procurement is to be done in empanelment method then give details of the organizations / companies which were approved for empanelment from April 2021 to April 2023.

(6) Are there any fertilizer not covered by the FCO 1985 are procured by Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation and supplied to PACCS. What are the fertilizers procured that does not come under the FCO, 1985 regulations. Give details of the name, variety, brand and name of the organization with copies of the same.

(7) How are the prices compared with market price of the fertilizers supplied by such organizations when being granted approval by your Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation through empanelment while procuring fertilizers from private companies.

(8) Give copies of information pertaining to whether your organization consults with the Agriculture Department while fixing the price for procurement with any price.

(9) Whether the intermediate products like Organic Manure, Bio-stimulant, Plant Growth Regulator, Neem Cake Bio Fertilizer and Nutrient fertilizers are tested batch wise for the products procured by your TANFED Corporation? In case, such quality analysis is it being done in a lab certified under F

Click Here to Read the rest of this document