Madras High Court
V.Krishnamurthi vs The State Information ... on 7 September, 2022
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
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”.
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
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.
https://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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
