In a reformist kind of judgement, the Kerala High Court has ruled that if documents held by a cooperative society are accessible to the registrar of cooperative societies and are not exempt from disclosure under Section 8 of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the registrar is obliged to procure the required information from the society and provide it to the RTI applicant.
This order, delivered on 27 November 2024, is related to the writ petition filed by the Mupathadam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd which had challenged an order of Kerala's state information commissioner (SIC). The SIC ordered that the public information officer (PIO) and deputy registrar (administration) of the registrar of cooperative societies furnish the requested information to the applicant.
RTI applicant PR Ramachandran, who is a member of Mupathadam Service Cooperative Bank, sought the following information: (i) The copy of the construction agreement between Muppathadam Service Cooperative Bank and the construction agency, viz., the Ooralungal Labour Cooperative Society, and (ii) The copy of the minutes of the last general body meeting of the petitioner-society.
However, the PIO replied that the requested documents were not available and could not be provided. His first appeal and second appeal, too were rejected. The HC, too rejected his petition and then he approached the division bench of the HC, which asked the SIC to re-look the same and the latter ordered a disclosure of information.
The cooperative society petitioned in the court that the information comes under the exempt disclosures under Section 8 of the RTI Act; hence, the information can be provided.
However, RTI applicant Ramchandran's lawyer argued in court that, under Section 19B of the Cooperative Societies Act itself, members have the right to access information about the society's functioning, including its by-laws, member register, latest audited balance sheet and accounts related to their transactions. Rule 24 of the Cooperative Societies Rules allows members to obtain documents from the registrar's office if the registrar is satisfied that the information is needed to address a grievance or for a lawful purpose.
He further argued that there is no confidentiality involved in either the construction agreement or the copy of the minutes of the general body meeting of Mupathadam Service Cooperative Bank to deny the information. The registrar of the societies would have access to these documents. The minutes of the meeting would not come under any of the exceptions as enumerated in Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Neither the agreement nor the minutes of the meeting sought by Mr Ramachandran would breach any commercial secret relating to confidentiality. Hence, the information asked by the applicant is not barred under Section 8 of the RTI Act, the lawyer says.
The HC order stated that, if the documents and information are accessible to the registrar of the cooperative society and are not exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act, the registrar can collect such information from Mupathadam Service Cooperative Bank which he is otherwise empowered to collect under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and furnish that information to the society member-applicant.
Quoting further from Section 66(4) of the Cooperative Societies Act, Mr Ramachandran's lawyers stressed that it empowers the registrar or any person authorised by him under subsection (1) or subsection (2) to have free access to and have the power to inspect the books, records, accounts, documents, securities, cash balance and other properties belonging to the society and may summon any person in possession of or responsible for the custody of such books, records, accounts, documents, securities, cash balance and other properties to produce the same for inspection at any place at the headquarters of the society or any branch thereof or where there is no working office for the society, at the office of the registrar or at the office of any of his subordinate officers. Thus, the registrar exercises wide power so far as the functioning of the society is concerned and has access to any documents in respect of the functioning of the society for inspection.
Connecting with the sub-clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 2(h)(d) of the RTI Act, the lawyer said that "It deals with ownership, control and substantial financing, either directly or indirectly by the government. The control exercised by the government through the registrar of Cooperative Societies is only regulatory in nature when the overall control rests with the board of directors, which is dominated by elected members, and ultimate control vests with the general body of the society. As per the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited (supra), the control of the government should be effective, all-pervasive and of the nature of interfere with the day-to-day administration of the society for that society to be considered as falling within the ambit of section 2(h)(d)(i)."
This ruling strengthens transparency and public access to information across cooperative institutions.
(Vinita Deshmukh is consulting editor of Moneylife. She is also the convener of the Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She is the recipient of prestigious awards like the Statesman Award for Rural Reporting, which she won twice in 1998 and 2005 and the Chameli Devi Jain Award for outstanding media person for her investigation series on Dow Chemicals. She co-authored the book "To The Last Bullet - The Inspiring Story of A Braveheart - Ashok Kamte" with Vinita Kamte and is the author of "The Mighty Fall".)
Only one answer this information is not with us. If you are not satisfied by answer then Ist Appeal contact SO &SO. ...... Matter closed..
Please take up this matter with Maharashtra govt . Maharashtra Co-op lobby is very strong &Has a say in government. Let us hope for good