Registrar Of Co-Operative Societies Is 'Public Authority', Expected To Provide Information Not Exempted Under RTI Act: Kerala High Court

In this case, the appellant had sought some information from under the RTI Act regarding a Co-operative Society from the office of The Joint Registrar (General) of Cooperative Societies. Aggrieved by not receiving information from the Public Information Officer, First Appellate Authority and Second Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, the appellant approached the High Court with a writ petition. On dismissal of the writ petition, this writ appeal was preferred.

The Division Bench comprising Justice A.Muhamed Mustaque and Justice S Manu analyzed the applicability of the RTI Act with respect to Co-operative Societies Act and held thus:

“…..it is well settled that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority who is expected to provide the information enumerated in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act subject to the limitations provided under Section 8 of the Act. Registrar can also, to the extent the law permits, gather information from a society on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Co- operative Societies Act.”

The appellant contended that the information was available with the office of the Joint Registrar and it should have been provided as per the RTI Act. It was argued that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority also falls within the definition under Section 2(f) of the Act. He contended that even if the information was not available from the office of the Joint Registrar, he should have obtained it from the Co-operative Society and provided it to the appellant.

On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the Co-operative Society contended that the information sought by the appellant was exempted information that cannot be disclosed under Section 8 of the Act.

The Court referred to Section 2(f) of the Act that defines the term 'Information' and stated that information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force also comes within its ambit. It further noted that 'Right To Information 'under Section 2(j) of the Act refers to information accessible under the Act which is held or under the control of a public authority.

The Court thus stated that when information regarding a private body was sought through a public authority, the authority may disclose it if they possess or control it, unless it falls under exempted categories. It further stated that if the information is not within their possession or control, the authority can still access it if they have legal authority under other applicable laws that establish their authority over the private body.

“Hence in such cases, the essential facet to be considered by the authorities under the Act is as to whether the public authority is vested with the power to seek /gather the particular information from the private body by virtue of the powers conferred by any law other than the RTI Act. Answer to the said issue will depend upon the extent of authority conferred on the public authority by the law which provides the public authority dominance over the private body” clarified the Court.

The Court referred to the decision in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013) where the Apex Court held that Co-operative Societies registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act would not come under the ambit of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The Court went on to state that the Apex Court laid down the obligations of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies under the RTI Act in that case. Further, the High Court noted that the Apex Court held that Registrar having administrative and supervisory control over the Co-operative Society was authorized by law to gather and disclose information obtained from the Society to the extent law permits. 

The court thus referring to Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank (supra) held that the Registrar of Co-operative Societies is a public authority under the RTI Act and he is expected to gather and disclose information permissible under the law.

In this case, the Court stated that the Chief Information Officer could have assessed whether the Registrar could obtain information sought by the appellant. It stated that the Chief Information Officer could also have assessed if the information sought by the appellant was exempted information that could not be disclosed. It thus stated that the Chief Information Officer dismissed the second appeal filed by the appellant without considering the afore factors. 

The Court thus quashed the order issued by the Chief Information Officer and also set aside the order in the writ petition. The Court directed the Chief Information Officer to reconsider the appeal preferred by the appellant and to pass fresh orders.

Recently, the Madras High Court held that co-operative societies registered under the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act would not qualify as public authority under Section 2(h) and were not bound by the provisions of the RTI Act.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 406

Case Title: P.R.Ramachandran  V The State Chief Information Commissioner 

Case Number: WA NO. 729 OF 2024

Click here to read/download Judgment