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 )