Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For petitioner: P.B Patil
  • For respondent No. 1: R.D Bhuibhar
  • For respondent No. 2: A.D Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader
  • For respondent No. 3: A.R Prasad
Judges
  • Shri. R. M. SAVANT
Acts
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Click here to upload
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
  • For petitioner: P.B Patil
  • For respondent No. 1: R.D Bhuibhar
  • For respondent No. 2: A.D Sonak, Assistant Government Pleader
  • For respondent No. 3: A.R Prasad
Judges
  • Shri. R. M. SAVANT
Acts
See more information ...
Smart Summary

Structured Summary of the Opinion

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, classified as a Producers (Labours) Society under section 12(1) of the Act and Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. Its principal object is to provide work to its members. The petitioner receives government work on a contract basis up to a limit of Rs. 15 lakhs at pre-determined rates and asserts it receives no financial assistance from the State and is self-sustaining.

Respondent No. 3, a press reporter, filed an application dated 10-7-2009 seeking various documents under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner refused to furnish the information on the ground that the RTI Act did not apply to it. The respondent appealed to the First Information Officer (the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies) in Appeal No. 2/2009; that appeal was allowed by order dated 27-8-2009. The respondent then filed a further appeal before the State Information Commissioner alleging non-compliance with the Assistant Registrar's order.

The State Information Commissioner (SIC) disposed of the appeal by order dated 23-6-2010, accepting that the petitioner was not a "public authority" under the RTI Act but directing the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies to procure and furnish the information to the applicant relying on the definition of "information" in section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The petitioner filed a review application; by order dated 28-9-2010 the SIC clarified that the original applicant should approach the Assistant Registrar by making an application and, if such application was received, the Assistant Registrar was to furnish the information by resort to his powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960.

The petitioner challenged the SIC's orders dated 23-6-2010 and 28-9-2010 by filing the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The rule was made returnable forthwith and the matter was heard finally with the consent of learned counsel for the parties.

Legal Issues Presented

  1. Whether the petitioner (a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act) is a "public authority" within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
  2. Whether the State Information Commissioner was within his powers to direct the Assistant Registrar (a public authority) to procure and furnish information relating to the petitioner under the definition of "information" in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, despite the petitioner not being a "public authority".
  3. Whether the SIC could validly secure compliance indirectly (by directing a public authority to access information about a private body) when it could not have issued the same direction directly against the private body.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

  • The RTI Act is not applicable to the petitioner because the petitioner is not a "public authority" within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
  • The State Information Commissioner erred in exercising jurisdiction and issuing directions because the petitioner is not covered by the RTI Act; the directions were therefore unwarranted and unjustified.
  • The petitioner relied on judgment(s) of learned Single Judges of this Court (Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. and Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. cases) holding co-operative societies/banks under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act are not "public authorities".
  • In rejoinder the petitioner contended that what the SIC could not do directly against the petitioner (i.e., compel disclosure) should not be achievable indirectly by directing the Assistant Registrar to obtain and furnish the information.

Respondent No. 1 (State Information Commissioner)'s Arguments

  • The SIC had accepted that the petitioner is not a "public authority" and referred to the Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh judgment, but nevertheless relied upon the definition of "information" in section 2(f) of the RTI Act to issue directions to the Assistant Registrar to provide the information.
  • The SIC acted within his powers because the Assistant Registrar is a public authority under the RTI Act, and information "relating to any private body" which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law falls within the RTI Act's definition of "information".
  • In the review order the SIC clarified that the applicant must make an application to the Assistant Registrar, and the Assistant Registrar, acting as a public authority, would provide the information using his statutory powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

Respondent No. 3's Arguments

  • Adopted the submissions of the State Information Commissioner.
  • Additionally contended that the Assistant Registrar, being a public authority, was obliged to provide the information.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent Rule or Principle Cited For Application by the Court
Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amravati v. State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, 2009 (3) Mh.LJ 364 Held that a Co-operative Society established under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a "public authority" for the purposes of the RTI Act when control is merely regulatory and there is no deep and pervasive control making it a "State" or "public authority". The court accepted this judgment and treated the issue that the petitioner is not a "public authority" as no longer res integra; the court did not re-open that question and proceeded on the basis that the petitioner is not a public authority.
Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. vs. Murlidhar Pundlikrao Sahare, 2010 (2) Mh.LJ 240 Relying on the Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh case, held that the co-operative bank in that case was not a "public authority". The court relied on this decision (as part of the reasoning that the point is not res integra) and therefore accepted that the petitioner-society is not a "public authority" within the meaning of the RTI Act.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first noted the undisputed factual position that the petitioner is a society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act whose object is to provide work to labourers on government-awarded contracts. The court observed that, in view of the cited Single Judge decisions, the petitioner-society is not a "public authority" within the meaning of section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The State Information Commissioner had also accepted that position in his order dated 23-6-2010; accordingly, the court treated the question of the petitioner's status under section 2(h) as no longer an open question ("no more res integra").

Having accepted that the petitioner is not a public authority, the court turned to the definition of "information" in section 2(f) of the RTI Act, which (as reproduced in the opinion) includes "information relating to any private body, which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force." The court reasoned that this definition deliberately covers situations in which information about a private body can be obtained by a public authority under other statutes or powers.

The court applied that statutory definition to the facts: the information sought related to the petitioner (a private body) but was being sought from the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who is a public authority and who can access such information under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. Given that the Assistant Registrar could statutorily access the information, the State Information Commissioner was within his powers to direct the Assistant Registrar to provide the information to the applicant by resort to his powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act.

The court explicitly rejected the petitioner's contention that the SIC could not achieve indirectly what it could not order directly against the petitioner. The court held that the direction was to a public authority (the Assistant Registrar) and the RTI Act's broader definition of "information" was intended to cover precisely such situations. Consequently, the Assistant Registrar, as a public authority, was obliged to furnish the information when approached appropriately.

On that basis the court concluded there was no ground to interfere with the impugned orders dated 23-6-2010 and 28-9-2010 passed by the State Information Commissioner.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is dismissed and the impugned orders dated 23-6-2010 and 28-9-2010 of the State Information Commissioner are not interfered with. Rule discharged; no order as to costs.

Implications:

  • The court upheld the SIC's approach that, even though the petitioner is not a "public authority" under section 2(h) of the RTI Act, information "relating to any private body" may be obtained from a public authority if that public authority can access the information under another law (here, the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act) in terms of section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
  • The direct effect on the parties is that the applicant (respondent No. 3) may approach the Assistant Registrar and, if an application is made, the Assistant Registrar (as a public authority) is obliged to furnish the information by resort to his statutory powers.
  • The court treated the question whether such co-operative societies are "public authorities" as settled by earlier Single Judge decisions and did not expand or depart from those rulings; the decision upholds the SIC's orders rather than announcing a novel principle beyond the statutory interpretation applied.
Show full summary ...
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

    Rajeshwar Majoor Kamgari Sahakari Sanstha Ltd., Plmpri Gawali v. State Information Commissioner, Amravati And Others

    1. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

    2. The above petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India takes exception to the order dated 23-6-2010 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Amravati in the Appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 whereby the said appeal was disposed of by issuing a direction to the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Motala to procure the information’ from the petitioner, which is sought by the respondent No. 3 herein and furnish the same to him. The petitioner also challenges the order dated 28-9-2010 passed in the Review Application filed by the petitioner.

    3. The facts involved in the petition can be stated thus:

    The petitioner is a Co-operative Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 and is classified as a Producers (Labours) Society under the provisions of section 12(1) of the said Act and Rule 10(1) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Rules, 1961. The principal object of the petitioner Society is to provide work to its members. The petitioner in terms of the Government policy is entitled to get Government work on contract basis upto a limit of Rs. 15 lakhs. The petitioner is accordingly awarded work and the payment is made at the pre-determined rates fixed by the State Government. It is the case of the petitioner that no financial assistance is given by the State Government and the petitioner Society sustains itself from the funds, which are self generated. The respondent No. 3 herein, who is a Press Reporter of Malkapur town, filed an application dated 10-7-2009 seeking various documents which were mentioned in the said application. The petitioner-Society did not furnish the said information to the respondent No. 3 on the ground that the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for the sake of brevity, hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”) was not applicable to it. The respondent No. 3 aggrieved by the non-furnishing of the information by the petitioner, filed an Appeal before the First Information Officer of the Co-operative Societies, who is the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which appeal came to be numbered as 2/2009. The said appeal was allowed by the Assistant Registrar, Motala by his order dated 27-8-2009. The respondent No. 3 thereafter filed an Appeal before the State Information Commissioner on the ground that the said order has not been complied with by the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies. The petitioner filed a reply, inter alia, contending that the First Information Officer had passed an order without hearing the petitioner and also taking a stand that the petitioner was not a “public authority”. The State Information Commissioner by the order dated 23-6-2010 disposed of the Appeal, inter alia, holding that though the petitioner is not a “public authority” within the meaning of the said Act, the information is directedto be provided by the Assistant Registrar in terms of section 2(f) of the said Act. The petitioner thereafter filed a review application, inter alia, seeking clarification of the said order. The said review application was disposed of by the State Information Commissioner by his order dated 28-9-2010. By the said order, the State Information Commissioner directed the original applicant, i.e respondent No. 3 herein to approach the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies by making an application and if such an application was received, the Assistant Registrar was directed to furnish the information by resorting to his powers under the Maharashtr Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. As indicated above, the said orders passed by the State Information Commissioner are impugned in the present petition.

    4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Shri Patil, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Authority under the said Act erred in exercising jurisdiction in view of the fact that the said Act was not applicable to the petitioner. It was submitted that the petitioner is not a “public Authority” within the meaning of section 2(h) of the said Act. The learned Counsel in support of the said submissions, relied upon the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd., Amravati v. State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur, 2009 (3) Mh.LJ 364 wherein it has been held that the Co-operative Society established under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act is not a “public Authority” as it does not satisfy the pre-requisites of being a “public Authority” within the meaning of section 2(h) of the said Act. It has been held that when the control is merely regulatory whether under statute or otherwise, it would not serye to make the body a “State” or “public Authority”. It is held that in the absence of existenceof deep and pervasive control with reference to the Institution, it cannot be called a “State” or “public Authority” within the meaning of the said Right to Information Act, 2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further relied upon anotherjudgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in- Shikshak Sahakari Bank Ltd. us. Murlidhar Pundlikrao Sahare, 2010 (2) Mh.LJ 240 wherein the learned Single Judge in that case relying, upon the judgment in the case of Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative, Bank Ltd. (supra) held that the Co-operative Bank concerned in that case was not a “Public Authority”. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contended that direction issued by the State Information Commissioner in the impugned orders was unwarranted and unjustified.

    5. Per contra, it was submitted by Shri Bhuibhar, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1-State Information Commissioner, that in the impugned order dated 23-6-2010 the State Information Commissioner has in fact accepted the contention of the petitioner that it is not a “Public Authority” and has also referred to the judgment of this Court in Dr. Punjabrao Deshmukh Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd.'s case (supra). However, the State Information Commissioner relying upon section 2(f) [wrongly mentioned as 2(c) in the order] has issued a direction to the Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies to provide the informationto the applicant by having recourse to the power conferred upon him under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It was, therefore, contended that the petitioner is proceeding on a misconception that the Authority under the said Act has issued the directions on the ground that the petitioner is a “Public Authority”. It was further contended that in the review application filed by the petitioner, the State Information Commissioner by his order dated 28-9-2010 has modified the said order, so as to provide, that in the event the original applicant makes an application to the Assistant Registrar, the Assistant Registrar in his capacity as a “Public Authority” would provide the said information to the applicant. It was, therefore, contended that since the Assistant Registrar is a public Authority within the meaning of the said Act, the State Information Commissioner was within his powers to issue the directions to him considering the definition of information’ under section 2(f) of the said Act.

    6. The learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3 adopted the arguments of Shri Bhuibhar, but additionally contended that the Assistant Registrar being a “public Authority”, was obliged to provide the said information.

    7. In rejoinder, the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the fact that the said Act is held to be not applicable, the State Information Commissioner was not within his powers to issue directions even to the Assistant Registrar. He contended that what the State Information Commissioner could not have done directly against the petitioner Society cannot be got done indirectly through the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies.

    8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and given my anxious consideration to the rival contentions. In the instant case, as mentioned earlier inthis judgment, admittedly the petitioner is a Society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies. Act and its objective is to provide work to the persons, who are mainly labour force in respect of the works that would be awarded to such type of Labour Societies by the State Government. In the teeth of the judgments of the two learned Single Judges of this Court (supra), there cannot be any dispute that the petitioner-Society is not a “Public Authority” within the meaning of the said Act. As can be seen, the said fact has also been accepted by the State Information Commissioner in the order dated 23-6-2010 and, therefore, the contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the said judgments (supra) that the petitioner is not a “Public Authority” need not be considered in view of the fact that the said issue is no more res integra.

    9. It is required to be noted that the State Information Commissioner after accepting the position that the petitioner-Society is not a “Public Authority” has taken into consideration the definition of “information” as provided for in section 2(f) of the said Act. It would be materia] to reproduce the said definition:

    “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body, which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force.’

    (emphasis supplied)

    Perusal of the said definition discloses that any information relating to any private body, which can be accessed by the Public Authority under any other law for the time being would come within the ambit of “information” as provided for in the said Act. In the instant case, theinformation was sought from the Assistant Registrar of the Co-operative Societies, who is admittedly a public Authority within the meaning of the said Act. The information being sought in respect of the petitioner-Society, which can be said to be a private Body, can be accessed by the Assistant Registrar under the powers conferred upon him by the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The State Information Commissioner, therefore, considering the said definition of “information” was within his rights to direct the Assistant Registrar, who is a Public Authority, to provide the said information by having recourse to his powers under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960, thereby what has been done is that the information, which the Assistant Registrar can statutorily access, has been directed to be provided to the applicant.

    10. The fact that the information is in respect of a private Body would make no difference as the direction is to a Public Authority and it is precisely to cover such a situation that the Legislature thought it fit to provide for a wider definition of the term “information”. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that what could not have been done directly, is sought to be done indirectly, therefore, can only be stated to be rejected as the Assistant Registrar is obliged to provide the said information as a public Authority exercising powers under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. The contentionof the learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, that since petitioner is not a public Authority, no information can be sought to be provided by the Assistant Registrar cannot be accepted. In that view of the matter, no case for interference with the impugned orders dated 23-6-2010 and 28-9-2010 passed by the Respondent No. 1 is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.

    Petition dismissed.
    Use AI to get other relevant cases.
    Try AI Pro free for 7 days Upgrade to AI Pro

    Comments

    Rajeshwar Majoor Kam... v. State Information Co...
    (Jun 15, 2011)