W.P.No.19256 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :07.09.2022
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
W.P.No.19256 of 2017
V.Krishnamurthi ... Petitioner
Vs.
1.The State Information Commissioner,
No.2, Sir Thiyagarayar Salai,
Teynampet,
Chennai-600 018.
2.The Public Information Officer and
the Department of Registrar of Co-operative Societies,
Thanjavur.
3.The 1st Appellate Authority and Joint Registrar
of Co-operative Societies,
Thanjavur. ... Respondents
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India
praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the
entire records from the 1st respondent in order in Case
No.SA.3729/E/2016 and SA 3825/E/2016 dated 27/04/2017 and quash
Page No.1 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.19256 of 2017
the same and direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal
on merits.
For Petitioner : Mr.D.A.Senthamani
For R1 : Mr.Niranjan Rajagopal
For M/s.G.R.Associates
For R2 & R3 : Mr.L.S.M.Hasan Fizal
Additional Government Pleader
ORDER
The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the entire records from the 1st respondent in order in Case No.SA.3729/E/2016 and SA 3825/E/2016 dated 27/04/2017 and quash the same and direct the 1st respondent to dispose of the petitioner's appeal on merits.
2.The petitioner has sought for a copy of the Audit Report for the year 2010-2011 of the Tanjore District Treasury employees Thrift and Credit Society which is under its control. As the same was refused, he filed an appeal before the 1st respondent / the State Information Commissioner and the same was rejected by the Information Commission Page No.2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19256 of 2017 vide its order dated 27.04.2017 by extracting the judgment of this Court as follows:
“7. khz;gik brd;id cah;ePjpkd;wk; mkh;t[ [ The Public Information Officer, Illayankudi Co-operative Union Bank Ltd., Illaynakudi, Sivagangai District V. two others in W.A.No.2425 of 2013, the General Manager, Illayankudi Cooperative Union Bank Ltd., Illayankudi Sivagangai Vs. K.M.Akbar Ali in W.A.Nos.2426 to 2428 of 2013 and the Rasipuram Co-operative Urbank Bank Ltd., Rasipuram, Namakkal District V. two others in W.A.No.2500 of 2013, ehs; 29.04.2005 vd;w tHf;Ffspy; fPH;f;fz;lthW jPh;g;g[ tH';fpa[s;sJ.
“a body which much after having come into existence is governed in accordance with the provisions of a statute and the societies which were subject matter of the appeals were held to fall under the later category, i.e. Governed by the Kerala Societies Act and not statutory bodies, but only body corporate within the meaning of Section 9 of the Kerala Co- operative Societies Act. After referring to several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it was held that the said societies which were subject matter of those appeals will not fall within the expression 'State' or 'instrumentally of the State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution”.Page No.3 of 6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19256 of 2017 “On the next issue relating to Constitutional provisions and Co-operative autonomy, it was held that co- operative societies are not treated as unit of self- Government Like Panchayat and Municipalities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court then proceeded to examine the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the effect of words “substantially financed” and the restrictions and limitations, which could be imposed in the larger public interest and held that the Co-operative Societies Act will not fall under the definition of “public authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act”.
3.When the Division Bench and the Hon'ble Apex Court have held that co-operative societies are not treated as unit of self-Government Like Panchayat and Municipalities to examine the provisions of the Right to Information Act, the effect of words “substantially financed” and the restrictions and limitations, which could be imposed in the larger public interest and also held that the Co-operative Societies Act will not fall under the definition of “public authority” as defined under Section Page No.4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19256 of 2017 2(h) of the Right to Information Act”, the same has been followed by the appellate authority.
4.In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any infirmity or irregularity in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner can approach the 2nd respondent, if he is so advised for the information which are possible under statutory provisions.
5.With the above observation, this Writ Petition stands dismissed.
No costs.
07.09.2022 kas Index : yes / no Internet : yes / no Speaking / Non speaking To
1.The State Information Commissioner, No.2, Sir Thiyagarayar Salai, Teynampet, Chennai-600 018.
Page No.5 of 6https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis W.P.No.19256 of 2017 N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kas
2.The Public Information Officer and the Department of Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur.
3.The 1st Appellate Authority and Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Thanjavur.
W.P.No.19256 of 2017 07.09.2022 Page No.6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis