The petitioner is aggrieved by Exhibits P9 and P10 orders issued 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. There is no consideration of the above aspect either in Exhibit P9 or Exhibit P10. Hence, when an application under the RTI Act is filed, before the authority constituted under the enactment, necessarily the authority would have to look into whether the society WP(C).No.16360 of 2011 - 2 -
would come within the ambit of the RTI Act, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision. Exhibits P9 and P10 are set aside for non-consideration of the aspect of whether the Government exercises any substantial and functional control over the affairs of the petitioner-Society. 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.
Writ petition is allowed, leaving liberty to the respondents 3 and 4 to urge for a re-consideration of the application; 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.
vku.
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran, Judge ( true copy )