1. The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext. P1 application submitted by the 2nd respondent for getting information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 [for brevity “RTI Act”].
2. Admittedly there was a dispute as to whether the Co-operative Societies would be covered under the RTI Act, which has now been resolved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by the decision reported in Thalappalam S.C.B. Ltd. v. State of Kerala [2013 (4) KLT 232 (SC)]. The Supreme Court, while finding that the societies would not be covered under the enactment, had provided a rider, insofar as the societies owned and controlled or substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the appropriate Government.
3. When an application under the RTI Act is filed, before the authority constituted under the enactment, necessarily the authority would W.P.(C)No.26117 of 2014 -:2:-
have to look into whether the society would come within the ambit of the RTI Act, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision. The said aspect would have to be considered by the authority itself on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision.
4. Writ petition is allowed setting aside Ext.P4 and leaving liberty to 2nd respondent to urge for a consideration of the application; before the appropriate authority, but, however, on discharging the burden to substantiate that the society would come within the ambit of the RTI Act as prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Parties are left to suffer their respective costs.
K. Vinod Chandran, Judge.
sl.