RTI applies to
urban cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions and other cooperative societies
Jalgoan Jilha Urban Co-Op Banks ... vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 13 February,
2017
Notwithstanding the myriad opinions and interpretations of several court judgments on
whether cooperative societies come under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, a recent
landmark judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court reiterates that urban
cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions and other cooperative societies are
bound by the Act.
The Association of Jalgaon Zilla Urban Cooperative Banks, Credit Societies and other
financial institutions registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960,
appealed in a petition to the High Court that cooperative institutions cannot be treated as
public authority under the RTI Act.
They contended, “In view of the provisions of Section 2(h) and Section 8 of the Right to
Information Act 2005, cooperative institutions registered under the Cooperative Societies Act
cannot be treated as public authority.”
They also argued that under banking rules too certain information cannot be disclosed. Their
contention was that in view of the provision of section 34A of the Banking 3 WP 1304 of
2008 Regulation Act, 1949, these institutions are not bound to disclose certain information
which, according to them, is confidential in nature.
The petitioners also argued that “these institutions are not receiving financial aid from the
Government, directly or indirectly, and so the provisions of the Act cannot be made
applicable to them”.
The petitioners, in their prayer, urged the court to declare cooperative societies and others as
“not public authorities” under the RTI Act. Following was their submission:
The urban cooperative banks, cooperative financial institutions, Patpedhis (credit
cooperative societies) and other cooperative societies, which are registered under the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960, are not public authorities within the
meaning of Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act.
These institutions stand exempted from disclosure of information u/s 8)1 (d), (e) and (j)
of the Right to Information Act
That the court issue a writ, order or direction restraining the officers of the cooperative
department from supplying any information to the members or general public which is,
according to the said societies, confidential in nature.
The court, pending the hearing and final decision of the writ petition, restrain the
respondent from disclosing any information other than the balance sheet and profit and
loss accounts of the cooperative societies, urban banks and Patpedhis to the general
public under Right to Information Act.
In its order issued on 13 February 2017, the court observed that cooperative institutions, are
registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 and that cooperative
societies and other such institutions are created by a statute; that they have a public authority
over them which is the final decision-making body.
Certain Articles of the Constitution also show that such institutions are discharging the duty
of the State and there is an ‘authority’ over them, which is the final decision-making body
and the co-operatives are bound to supply information (all of which comes under Section 2
(f) of the RTI Act), to this authority. Hence, cooperative societies and other such institutions
are bound to supply information under the RTI Act, the HC said.
The High Court observed:
Cooperative institutions are bodies created by the statute. But right from the registration
till the liquidation there is control over these institutions by the authority created under
the same Act. The authority steps in to take decisions on the rights of the members. The
authority has control over the manner in which funds are invested or over the distribution
of the funds. Such institutions cannot act independently and the apex bodies are created
for such institutions.
Even Articles 38,39,43 and 48 of the Directive Principles of State Policy of the
Constitution show that to some extent such institutions are discharging the duty of the
State
The provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act show that the authority
under the Act can do the audit and inquire into irregularities. If loss is caused to the
institution, by the directors, promoters etc., the authority can assess the damage, and the
loss caused to the institution can be recovered from those persons. Under the Act, the
authority can suspend the managing committee and remove its members. For all these
and other purposes mentioned in the Cooperative Societies Act, the cooperative
institution is bound to supply the record to the authority.
The provisions of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, if read with the definition
of information given in Section 2(f) of the Act, makes it clear that everything which is
mentioned in the definition of information needs to be supplied by the cooperative
institution to the authority created under the Cooperative Societies Act. The definition of
'Public Authority' given in Section 2(h) shows that such public authority can be created
by any law made by the State Legislature. It is already observed that the officers like
Registrar and his subordinate officers are appointed under the Cooperative Societies
Act.
The High Court therefore concluded that, “…the reliefs claimed in the present petition cannot
be granted as the reliefs can be used 14 WP 1304 of 2008 directly or indirectly by the
cooperative institutions to deny the supply of the information... This Court holds that no relief
which is claimed in the present petition can be given to the petitioner.”
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, who has been pursuing this issue for long, says, “After the
Supreme Court’s order in Thalappalam Services Cooperfative Bank Ltd. against State of
Kerala, public authorities and public information officers (PIOs) said the RTI act was not
applicable to cooperative societies. Actually even in the Thalappalam case, the apex court, in
paragraph 52 of its judgment, had categorically stated that the PIO of Registrar of
Cooperative Societies is duty bound to supply the information. But even then PIOs and
cooperative societies were denying the information sought under RTI.”
13 WP 1304 of 2008 10) The provisions of the Maharashtra
Cooperative Societies Act if read with the definition of information given in section 2(f) of
the Act, it can be said that everything which is mentioned in the definition of information
needs to be supplied by the cooperative institution to the authority created under the
Cooperative Societies Act. The definition of 'Public Authority' given in section 2(h) shows
that such public authority can be created by any law made by the State Legislature. It is
already observed that the officers like Registrar and his subordinate officers are appointed
under the Cooperative Societies Act and they have the control over the aforesaid things. In
view of these circumstances, the observations made by the Apex Court in the
paragraphs already quoted can be used safely when the
information is sought from the authority like Registrar or his subordinates
under the Cooperative Societies Act.Thus, the reliefs claimed in the present petition cannot
be granted as the reliefs can be used 14 WP1304 of 2008 directly or
indirectly by the cooperative institutions to deny the
supply of theinformation. The circumstances that the other matters were
allowed by this Court, other Bench of this Court, cannot come in the way of
giving present decision by this Court as the decision of theSupreme Court was not
there when other matters were decided by this Court. This Court holds thatno relief which is
claimed in the present petition can be given to the petitioner.The previous interpretation
made by this Court is not correct interpretation in view of the law laiddown by the
Apex Court. In the result, the petition stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.Civil Application
is disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/- (SANGITRAO S PATIL, J.) (T.V. NALAWADE, J.) rsl
No comments:
Post a Comment