Kerala High Court
Kaduthuruthy Urban Co-Operative Bank vs The Assistant Registrar on 11 June, 2024
WP(C) NO.14943 OF 2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 14943 OF 2017
PETITIONER:
KADUTHURUTHY URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.NO.K.399
REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN,
KADUTHURUTHY P.O, KOTTAYAM.
BY ADV SRI.P.N.MOHANAN
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
(GENERAL),
VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM 686 604.
2 JAYAN B.,
KUREECKAL, KADUTHURUTHY P.O,
KOTTAYAM 686 604.
3** THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (GENERAL), VAIKOM,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT -696 141.
[**ADDL.R3 IS IMPLEADED AS PER THE ORDER DATED
05/05/2017 IN IA NO.7076/2017.]
BY ADV
SRI.T.SHIHABUDHEEN
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI.IMAM GRIGORIUS KARAT-GOVERNMENT PLEADER
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
WP(C) NO.14943 OF 2017
2
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM, J.
--------------------------------
W.P.(C) No. 14943 of 2017
--------------------------------
Dated this the 11th day of June, 2024
JUDGMENT
1. The 2nd respondent submitted Ext.P1 request dated
17.04.2017 to the 1st respondent seeking certain
informations with respect to the petitioner. The 1 st
respondent issued Ext.P2 dated 21.04.2017 directing the
petitioner to furnish those details. The contention of the
petitioner is that the petitioner being a Co-operative Society
is not bound to furnish the informations under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the RTI
Act"). Hence, the 2nd respondent could not obtain the
informations through the 1st respondent. That apart,
according to the petitioner, the informations sought are
exempted from the purview of the RTI Act on the ground
that it is personal. The petitioner relies on Ext.P3
Judgment.
2. I heard the Counsels on either side.
WP(C) NO.14943 OF 2017
3. The learned Government Pleader submitted that the
informations sought from the Society as per Ext.P1 & P2
are not personal in nature and hence Ext.P3 Judgment is
not applicable. According to the learned Government
Pleader, Society comes under the superintendence of the 1 st
respondent and hence Society is bound to furnish the
details sought in Ext.P2. The Counsel for the 2 nd
respondent also made submissions supporting the
contentions of the learned Government Pleader.
4. Ext.P2 shows that without affording an opportunity to
raise objection, the 1st respondent ordered the petitioner to
furnish the details and hence it can not be permitted. In
fact the 1st respondent ought to have given opportunity to
the petitioner to raise objection with regard to the
informations sought by the 2nd respondent.
5. Hence, I direct to treat Ext.P2 as a Notice and permit
the petitioner to submit its objection to Ext.P2 and further
direct the 1st respondent to pass appropriate orders after
WP(C) NO.14943 OF 2017
hearing the petitioner and the 2nd respondent with regard
to the informations sought in Ext.P2 within a period of two
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the
judgment.
Sd/-
M.A. ABDUL HAKHIM,
JUDGE
S.M.K.
WP(C) NO.14943 OF 2017
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 14943/2017
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE REQUEST DATED 17-04-
2017 OF THE SECOND RESPONDENT SUBMITTED
BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER
EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED
21-04-2017 OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT
EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 16-
02-2017 IN W.P(C) NO 4154/2017
