Appeal No. 189/SIC/2011 Decided on 09/05/2014

GOA STATE INFORMATION COMMISISON

Ground Floor, Shrama Shakti Bhavan, Patto Plaza, Panaji-Goa.

Coram : Smt. Leena Mehendale, State Chief Information Commissioner

Appeal No. 189/SIC/2011

Decided on 09/05/2014

Shri. Avito C. Almeida,

Post Bag No. 1142,

Vasco Da Gama, Goa. ….. Appellant.

V/s

1. The Public Information Officer,

Asstt. Registrar of Co-op. Societies,

Gomant Vidya Niketan Building,

3^rd floor, South Zone, Margao-Goa.

2. The Secretary,

Alta Mont Cooperative Housing Society Ltd.,

Ascanio D’Costa Road,

Behind Grace Church,Margao-Goa.

3. The First Appellate Authority,

Registrar of Co-operative Societies,

Panaji-Goa. …… Respondents

O R D E R (Open Court)

RTI application filed on: - 07/04/2011

PIO replied: - 29/04/2011

First Appeal filed on: - 28/06/2011

FAA Order dated: - 27/07/2011

Second Appeal filed on: - 26/08/2011

(1) This second appeal arises out of original RTI application filed on 7/4/2011 before the PIO and Asstt. Registrar of Coop. Societies, South Zone, Margao – Goa.

(2) Information asked is in respect of Alto Mont Coop. Housing Society Ltd. and gives reference to earlier order passed by Asst. Registrar Coop. societies, South Zone, vide No.17-39-80/ARSZ/HSG/754 dated 15/6/1993. which was apparently passed in a case filed by Chairman of the said Society, against the present appellant.

(3) The information was given by the PIO on 4/6/2011 stating that the information pertains to 18 yrs. old case, and it appears that it is regarding some private case which has no relationship to any public activity and further the information requested at point no. 1(a)(b), 2(a)(b) and at point 3 is not traceable in the records of the Society presently and also the said information

Cont----2---

---2----

is exempted from disclosure as per Sec. 8(1)(d), Sec.8(1)(e) and Sec.8(1)(j) (CIC/AT/C/2008/00531)

(4) The first appeal was made and the FAA has passed his order on 27/7/2011.However the appellant who has filed the second appeal on 26/8/2011 has claimed that no order was passed by the FAA.

(5) The Secretary of the said Alto Mont Coop. Housing Society Ltd. is also impleaded as respondent No. 2, which is taken as record on 8/8/2012.

(6) A reply has been filed by the FAA on 07/08/2012, stating that order was pronounced on 17/7/2012 and that in response to the notice by FAA the appellant remained present only on 14/7/2012, but remained absent thereafter. Thus being aware of hearing the appellant should have inquired before making statement in the second appeal memo that FAA did not passed the order.

In this elaborate judgment, the FAA has observed that –

1. “The Appellant states that he made an application dated 07/04/2011 thereby seeking some information under the RTI Act.
2. In response to the notice in 1^st Appeal, the Appellant was remained present only on 14/07/2011 and thereafter remained absent.
3. The information sought by the Appellant was not available in the office of the Respondent/P.I.O. Therefore, the P.I.O. had requested the said Society to furnish the required information to the Appellant.
4. Information requested by the Appellant under the RTI Act 2005, pertains to 18 years old case and it is pertaining to some private case which has no relationship to any public activity and does not involve larger public interest.
5. In view of the above circumstances, I do not agree with the contentions of the Appellant that the Respondent/PIO has refused to provide the information under the said Act which is neither available in the office of the Respondent/P.I.O. nor even with the Alto Mont Coop. Housing Society Ltd.”

----3---

-----3---

(7) On 22/1/2014 the respondent No. 3 has filed a Supreme Court Judgment in case of “Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd & Ors. V. State of Kerala & Ors”.

The crux of the judgment is that:

the Hon’ble Supreme Court has drawn a clear distinction between a body which is created by a Statute and a body which, after having come into existence, is governed in accordance with the provisions of a Statute. Hon’ble S.C. has observed that “the Housing Societies, in these appeals, are not public authorities and, hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information sought for by a citizen under the RTI Act. All the same, if there is any dispute on facts as to whether a particular Society is a public authority or not, the State Information Commissioner can examine the same and find out whether the Society in question satisfies the test laid in this judgment. Now, the next question is whether a citizen can have access to any information of these Societies through the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act.

As a public authority, Registrar of Co-operative Societies has been conferred with lot of statutory powers under the RTI Act. Information which he is expected to provide is 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 law permits, gather information from a Society, on which he has supervisory or administrative control under the Cooperative Societies Act”.

(8) I have gone through the original RTI application and also order of the FAA . I find that Para No. 1 of the RTI application is a statement, question 1(a) and 1(b) are internal matters of the Society. Similarly, question No. 2(a) and 2(b) and question No. 3 are internal matters of the Society. Question No. 1(c) and 2(c) refer to the balance sheet of the Society which every society is expected to file before the Registrar of Coop. Societies. However I also notice that matter pertains to the year 1993 upto 1995, which is nearly 20 years old.

----4----

----4----

(9) It is noted that the then SIC had passed order on 9/3/2012, granting inspection of the Record Room of the Society by the appellant. It was actually carried out on 22/4/2012 by appellant. It was earlier stated by respondent No. 2 for Housing Societies before the FAA that information pertaining to 1c and 2c was eaten by ants. However the inspection report filed by appellant on 9/7/2012, before SIC states that no record is eaten by ants, and that all the record is kept nicely.

(10) In the Report the appellant has observed the following “the inspection held on 22.04.2012 at 11.00 hrs. in the office of Alta Mont Co-operative Housing Societies Ltd., in the presence of secretary and treasurer representing the respondent No.2 and the appellant alongwith Sr. Auditor from the office of the Accountant General, Goa, reveals that all records are available and that no such payments had been made to the Advocates in case No. 17-39-80/ARSZ/HSG/754 dated 15.05.1993 and Appeal No. 1d of 1993 on the basis of documents available shown to the appellant and to the Sr. Auditor. Therefore society has to furnish a categorical statement that no payment is made by the society to the Advocates in the above matter”

(11) I do not agree with contention of the appellant. It is true that since the PIO did not have the Annual Accounts of the society pertaining to period beyond 10 years, he made his efforts by calling for said information. The society although did not furnish information then but offered inspection at the stage of FAA himself. The appellant did not avail as he chose to remain absent on the date of subsequent hearing. Afterwards the inspection was permitted by the then SCIC and the inspection showed that in the account books there was no mention of any payment made to any Advocate during the years under question. This is admitted by the Appellant himself.

However simply on the basis of the fact that Balance Sheet does not show any payment to any Advocate, PIO cannot make a statement that no payment was made by the Society to the Advocate. The question whether the Advocate was actually paid or not is not same as whether the Account Books reveal any payment to him. Moreover, it is out of context of this RTI appeal.

----5---

----5-----

Whatever is revealed in the Audited Accounts of Society has to be taken at its Face Value unless there is a material evidence to distrust it. In any case the appellant now seems to have knowledge regarding his question and that appears to be the reason for his absence after 12/7/2012 and non-persuasion.

O R D E R

In view of above appeal is dismissed. Order declared in open Court. Inform the parties.

Sd/-

(Leena Mehendale)

Goa State Chief Information Commissioner,

Goa State Information Commission

Panaji – Goa.