The petitioner is aggrieved by Ext.P2 letter dated 03.12.2012 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.
WP(C).29068/12 2
3. There is no consideration of the above aspect in Ext. P2. 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 would come within the ambit of the RTI Act, as declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the afore-cited decision. Ext.P2 is 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.
4. It is pertinent that the third party, who has authored Ext.P2 query has not been impleaded herein. However, there was a stay operative and WP(C).29068/12 3 if the author of Ext.P2 was diligent enough, to pursue the matter, he would have been aware of the writ petition. In any event, going by the binding precedents, the writ petition is disposed of leaving open the remedies to the author of Ext.P2 to challenge agitate the cause, in accordance with law, if so advised.
The writ petition is disposed of, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge Mrcs //True Copy//