Madras High Court
E-2570 vs The Additional Registrar Of on 13 March, 2023
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.03.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.16073 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.17365 of 2017
E-2570, Sivayam Primary Agriculture
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd.
Rep. by its Secretary
Chidambaram Post
Cuddalore District. .. Petitioner
vs
1. The Additional Registrar of
Co-operative Societies (ICDP)
No.170, N.V.N Maligai
Kipauk, Chennai -10.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
3. N.Nadanasabapathi .. Respondents
Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying
for a writ of Certiorari, calling for the records of the orders of the first
respondent in Rc.No.66860/2013AR1, dated 06.09.2013,
Rc.No.66860/2013Ar1, dated 23.10.2013 and subsequent letter issued by
the second respondent in Na.Ka.No.1533/2017 Pa dated 10.06.2017
directing the petitioner to provide information required by the third
___________
Page 1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
respondent quash them holding that the petitioner co-operative society
registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act will not fall
within the definition of “Public Authority” as defined under Section 2(h) of
the RTI Act.
For the Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Shiva Kumar
For the Respondents : Mr.P.Sanjay Gandhi
Government Advoate
for respondents 1 & 2
Mr.A.Muthukumar
for respondent 3
ORDER
The writ petition has been filed by Sivayam Primary Agriculture
Co-operative Credit Society Ltd., which is a cooperative society registered
under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983.
2. The petitioner Society is a State within the meaning of Article 12
of the Constitution of India. Thus, the cooperative society has been
excluded from the provisions of the Right to Information Act and the
Hon'ble Supreme Court also ruled the said principle. This Court has earlier
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
considered a similar issue in W.P.No.31373 of 2010 dated 15.11.2021 and
the relevant portion reads as under:
“3. When the matter was taken up for final disposal,
learned counsel appearing for both the parties submitted
that the relief prayed for, in the present writ petition is
squarely covered by the decision of the Hon-ble
Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Service
Cooperative Bank Ltd and Others vs. State of Kerala
and Others [2013 (6) CTC 98 (SC)] and the judgement
of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Public
Information Officer vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu
Information Commission [2015 (4) CTC 105].
4. In paragraph 54 of the judgment in the case of
Thalappalam Services Cooperative Bank Ltd and Others
Vs. State of Kerala and Others [(2013) 7 MLJ 407
(SC)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“We, therefore, hold that the Cooperative
Societies registered under the Kerala Co~operative
Societies Act will not fall within the definition of public
authority as defined under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
and the State Government letter dated 05.05.2006 and
the circular dated 01.06.2006 issued by the Registrar of
Co~operative Societies, Kerala, to the extent, made
applicable to societies registered under the Kerala
Co~operative Societies Act would stand quashed in the
absence of materials to show that they are owned,
controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate
Government. Appeals are, therefore, allowed as above,
however, with no order as to costs.“
In Paragraph 9 of the decision in The Public
Information Officer Vs. The Registrar, Tamilnadu
Information Commission and Others etc. [2015 (4) CTC
105], the Hon-ble Division Bench of this Court has held
as follows:
9. In the light of the above, we have no hesitation
to hold that the legal issue arising in these Appeals are
squarely covered by the decision of the Hon-ble
Supreme Court in the case of Thalappalam Ser. Coop.
Bank Ltd. And others Vs. State of Kerala and others,
2013 (6) CTC 98 (SC). The distinction sought to be
drawn by the learned counsel for the respondent stating
that the provisions of the RTI Act would be applicable to
cases where the Government Officers are appointed to
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
function as Special Officers of the society, when there is
no elected Board of Directors, could hardly make any
difference in the light of the recent pronouncement of the
Hon-ble Supreme Court. The learned Counsel appearing
for the Appellants submitted that for all the societies,
elections were conducted and the societies are managed
by the elected members.””
3. In view of the judgment cited supra, the impugned order has no
legs to stand. Accordingly, the order impugned passed by the first
respondent in proceedings dated 06.09.2013 and the subsequent orders are
quashed.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. There will be no
order as to costs.
13.03.2023
Index : Yes/No
Neutral Order:Yes/No
drm
To:
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
1. The Additional Registrar of
Co-operative Societies (ICDP)
No.170, N.V.N Maligai
Kipauk, Chennai -10.
2. The Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies
Chidambaram, Cuddalore District.
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
W.P.No.16073 of 2017
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J.
(drm)
W.P.No.16073 of 2017 and
W.M.P.No.17365 of 2017
13.03.2023
___________
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
