IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

101+213 CM-19892-CWP-2024 in/&

CWP-13580-2015 Date of Decision :09.01.2025 The Punjab State Federation of Cooperative House Building Socieities Limited ...Petitioner Versus The State Information Commission, Punjab and another ....Respondents

102+213 CM-50-CWP-2025 in/&

CWP-20904-2015 The Punjab State Coopearive Bank Limited ...Petitioner Versus State Information Commission, Punjab and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-13580-2015.

Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate with Mr. Adhiraj Toor, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-20904-2015.

Ms. Shruti, AAG, Punjab.

* * *

Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral)

1. In the present petitions, challenge is to orders dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure P/3) and 27.08.2015 (Annexure P/5) passed by the State Information Commission, Punjab. In the impugned order dated 20.05.2015 (Annexure P/3) though, the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank have been held to be a Cooperative Society but have been treated as public authority within the domain of Right to Information Act, 2005 on the ground that State has persuasive control over the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank and hence, the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank are bound by the provision of Right to Information Act, 2005.

2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank submits that in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.9017-2013 titled as, Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank Limited and others vs. State of Kerala and others, decided on07.10.2013 it has been held that the Cooperative Societies are not amenable under the Right to Information Act, 2005 even if, the control of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies appointed by the State is established. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank further submits that the said judgment has been though, noticed in the impugned order but ignored while recording the finding that petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank are public authority as the Government has administrative as well as financial control over the same.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank further submits that total share of money of the Government is not more than 21% and 1% and the State has only the supervisory control and not the administrative control with regard to the day to day functioning of the petitioner-HOUSEFED and Cooperative Bank.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner-Cooperative Bank in CWP- 20904-2015 submits that the Government is not having even 1% share of money in the petitioner-Cooperative Bank.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that State was not party to the present petitions and has no role and the claim of the petitioners be decided on the basis of the pleadings already on record.

7. Respondent No.2 is served but chose not to appear and has already been proceeded ex-parte.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance.

9. The challenge in the preset petition is to the findings recorded by the Punjab State Information Commission that the petitioner- HOUSEFED as well as petitioner-Cooperative Bank are though, Cooperative societies but as the same are being controlled administratively and financially by the State Government, the same will be treated as a Public Authority so as to be amenable to Right to Information Act, 2005.

10. The issue which needs adjudication in the present petitions is whether or not, findings recorded by the Punjab State Information Commission qua the substantial control of the State administratively as well as financially is to the said extent, which will make the petitioners-

societies amenable to the Right to Information Act, 2005.

11. Though, it is a conceded position that under the Punjab State Cooperative Society Act, 1961, the Registrar Cooperative Societies,