Trichur Urban Co-operative Bank Limited v. Joint Registrar (General), Co-operative Societies, Thrissur; Public Information Officer/Deputy Registrar (Administration), Office of the Joint Registrar, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; Unit Inspector - Nadathara, Assistant Registrar (General) Office, Sahakaran Bhavan, Ayyanthole, Thrissur; The State Information Commission, Kerala; Chandrika Balan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2016/12TH CHAITHRA, 1938 WP(C).No. 38414 of 2015 (B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER : - ----------------------- THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LIMITED NO. 87, MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERALA MANAGER. BY ADVS. SRI.C.D.DILEEP,SC,TRICHUR URBN CO-OP BANK SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE RESPONDENTS : - - ---------------------------- 1. THE JOINT REGISTRAR (GENERAL), CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THRISSUR, CIVIL LINE, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-680 003 2. PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER/DEPUTY REGISTRA(ADMINISTRATION ), OFFICE OF THE JOINT REGISTRAR, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR-PIN-680003 3. UNIT INSPECTOR - NADATHARA, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (GENERAL) OFFICE, SAHAKARANA BHAVAN, AYYANTHOLE, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003 4. THE STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION, KERALA, PUNNAN ROAD, THIRUVNANTHAPURAM, PIN: 695 001, (REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY). 5. CHANDRIKA BALAN, W/O BALAN,. PUZHAKKADAVIL HOUSE, KANJANI-ROAD, CHUNGAM STOP, THRISSUR, PIN-680 003 R5 BY ADV. SRI.A.JAYASANKAR R5 BY ADV. SRI.C.V.MANUVILSAN R5 BY ADV. SRI.MANU GOVIND R5 BY ADV. SRI.ASHWIN SETHUMADHAVAN BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. G. GOPAKUMAR BY SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01-04-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 38414 of 2015 (B) --------------------------------------- ## **APPENDIX** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS : - -------------------------------------- EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE APPLICATION UNDER RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT DATED 30/9/15 SUBMITTED BYTHE 5TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P1(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXT-P1. EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE /ORDER NO CRB 8322/15 DATED 6/10/15 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. EXT.P2(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXT-P2. EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28/10/15 ISSUED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT DATED 23/11/15 FOR CONDUCTING ENQUIRY UNDER SECT 66(1) (4) (11) OF THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT. EXT.P4(a): TRUE COPY OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF THE EXT -P4. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS : - NIL. ---------------------------------------- // TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE DMR/- ## **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU, J.** --------------------------------------- ## **W.P.(c) No. 38414 of 2015** ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 01[st] day of April, 2016 ## JUDGMENT The fifth respondent submitted Exhibit P1 application before the first respondent under the provisions of Right to Information Act seeking certain information. Acting on Exhibit P1, the office of the first respondent forwarded the application through Exhibit P2 to the petitioner Bank. 2. The petitioner Bank has, however, refused to accede to the first respondent's request on the grounds that the Society falls outside the purview of the Right to Information Act. Accordingly, it has communicated its decision through Exhibit P3. Under these circumstances, the office of the first respondent issued Exhibit P4 proceedings ordering an enquiry into the affairs of the Society by invoking Section 66 (1), (4), (11) of the Co-operative Societies Act. Assailing Exhibit P4, the petitioner Bank has filed the writ petition. 3. In response to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel for the W.P.(c) No. 38414 of 2015 2 firth respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent has submitted that the course of action adopted by the first respondent is _ex facie_ illegal. According to him, the State Public Information Officer attached to the office of the first respondent, i.e. the second respondent, ought to have heard both parties on the objection raised by the petitioner Society through Exhibit P3 and ruled on the issue whether the Society falls within the purview of Right to Information Act. He has, at this juncture, brought to my notice a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in **Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited and others v. State of Kerala and others[1]** . 4. Summing up his submissions, the learned counsel has submitted that the Society is duty bound to provide the information, as has been specifically declared by the Honourable Supreme Court in paragraph 67 of the above judgment. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Government Pleader for respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Standing counsel for the fourth respondent, as well as 1 (2013) 16 SCC 82 W.P.(c) No. 38414 of 2015 3 the learned counsel appearing for the fifth respondent, apart from perusing the record. 6. Indeed, the fifth respondent sought information through Exhibit P1 by invoking the provisions of Right to Information Act. Record reveals that Exhibit P1 was addressed to the Assistant Information Officer in the office of the first respondent. In response to the communication from the second respondent, the petitioner Society, through Exhibit P3, refused to divulge any information and took shelter under the plea that it is not a public authority. 7. As has been rightly contended by the learned Standing Counsel for the fourth respondent, the Apex Court in **Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited** _(supra)_ has exhaustively interpreted the provisions of Right to Information Act. In paragraph 67 of the judgment, their lordships have held as follows: “67. The Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2 _(h)_ of the Act. As a public authority, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty-bound to comply with the W.P.(c) No. 38414 of 2015 4 obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen under the RTI Act. The information which he is expected to provide is the information enumerated in Section 2 _(f)_ of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act. The Registrar can also, to the extent law permits, gather information from a society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2 _(f)_ , he can also gather those information from the society, to the extent permitted by law. The Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act. No provision has been brought to our knowledge indicating that, under the Cooperative Societies Act, a Registrar can call for the details of the bank accounts maintained by the citizens or members in a cooperative bank. Only those information which a Registrar of Cooperative Societies can have access under the Cooperative Societies Act from a society could be said to be the information which is “held”, or “under the control of public authority”. Even those information, the Registrar, as already indicated, is not legally obliged to provide if those information falls under the exempted category mentioned in Section 8 _(j)_ of the Act. Apart from the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, there may be other public authorities who can access information from a cooperative bank of a private account maintained by a member of a society W.P.(c) No. 38414 of 2015 5 under law, in the event of which, in a given situation, the society will have to part with that information. But the demand should have statutory backing.” 8. In the light of the above definitive judicial dictum by the Apex Court, the second respondent ought to have caused an enquiry into the issue based on the fifth respondent's Exhibit P1 application and the Society's Exhibit P3 reply and ruled whether the Society is liable to part with the information sought by the fifth respondent. Based on the outcome of his ruling on the issue, either of the parties, if aggrieved, could have taken further remedial measures to redress their grievance. Instead, an Inspector in the office of the first respondent has issued Exhibit P4 seeking to cause an enquiry into the affairs of the Society by invoking Section 66(1), (4), (11) of the Co-operative Societies Act. I am afraid, the course adopted by the first respondent cannot be sustained. In the facts and circumstances, this Court, apart from setting aside Exhibit P4, further directs the second respondent to put both the fifth respondent and the petitioner Bank on notice and adjudicate on the issue of the amenability of the petitioner Society to the provision of Right to Information Act, W.P.(c) No. 38414 of 2015 6 with specific reference to **Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited** _(supra),_ and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. No order as to costs. **DAMA SESHADRI NAIDU JUDGE** DMR/-