SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 71047

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr.Justice HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
DK95 VEPPANNAPALLI PANCHAYAT – Appellant
Versus
THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE – Respondent



##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

W.P.No.28271 of 2023

under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will not fall within the

definition of “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.

under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will not fall within the

definition of “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2 (h) of the RTI.

For Petitioner : Mr.M.S.Palaniswamy

For Respondents : Mr.C.Prabakaran for R1

Government Counsel

R2-Sd-No appearance

ORDER

The petitioner challenges the communication dated 16.08.2023 issued by

the first respondent directing the petitioner to furnish information to the second

respondent under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. The petitioner is a registered Co-operative Society. It is the specific

case of the petitioner that the Society does not receive any financial assistance

from the Government and, therefore, does not fall within the definition of a

“public authority” under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.

3. The question whether a Co-operative Society, which is not

substantially financed by the Government, is amenable to the provisions of the

Right to Information Act has already been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme

2/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2026 04:33:23 pm )

##PAGE3##

W.P.No.28271 of 2023

Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Others v. State

of Kerala and Others, reported in (2013) 16 SCC 82, and also by the Division

Bench of this Court in W.A. Nos.2425 to 2428 and 2500 of 2013, decided on

29.04.2015, wherein it was held as follows:

“15. On a perusal of the above judgments, it

is clear that a Co-operative Society registered

under the relevant Co-operative Societies Act

cannot be brought within the purview of the Right to

Information Act unless it is established that the

Society is substantially financed, directly or

indirectly, by the appropriate Government. Merely

because the Society is administered by a Special

Officer, it does not become amenable to the Act. It

has also been held that the burden of proving that

the Society is substantially financed by the

Government lies on the information seeker and not

on the Society from which the information is sought.

16. In view of the settled legal position, a Co-

operative Society which is not covered by the

provisions of the Right to Information Act is not

required to furnish the information sought.

Consequently, the direction issued by the

Information Commission through the impugned

order cannot be sustained and is liable to be set

aside.”

4. It is, therefore, clear that unless it is established that a Co-operative

Society is substantially financed, either directly or indirectly, by the appropriate

Government, it cannot be treated as a public authority under Section 2(h) of the

3/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2026 04:33:23 pm )

##PAGE4##

W.P.No.28271 of 2023

Right to Information Act.

5. In the present case, the petitioner Society is not a statutory body. The

ultimate authority of the Society vests with its General Body. That fact, by itself,

does not give rise to a presumption that the Society is substantially financed by

the Government.

6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative

Bank Ltd. has also explained the scope of the expression “substantially

financed” and the meaning of “control” in paragraphs 36 to 38 of the judgment,

which read as follows:

“36. A body which is controlled by the

appropriate Government can fall within the

definition of a public authority under Section 2(h)

(d)(i).

37. The expression “controlled” has to be

understood in the context of the Right to

Information Act and not in the context of Article 12

or Article 226 of the Constitution. The word has

not been defined in the Act and must therefore be

interpreted in the context in which it appears,

namely along with the expressions “owned” and

“substantially financed”.

38. While interpreting the scope of the

expression “control”, the Supreme Court in State

4/7

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2026 04:33:23 pm )

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top