Citation: 2025 (4) KLR 103 : 2025 KER 28555
Court: High Court of Kerala (Division Bench)
Judges: Nitin Jamdar, C.J. & S. Manu, J.
Case No.: W.A. No. 2105 of 2024; 1 April 2025

Right to Information Act, 2005 – Section 2(f) – Information Accessible by Public Authority – Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 – Sections 65, 66, Rule 176 – Cooperative Society – Disclosure of Construction Contract and General Body Meeting Minutes.

Appellant Cooperative Society challenged the State Chief Information Commissioner’s direction to provide a member with copies of a construction contract and general body meeting minutes, upheld by the Single Judge.

Table of Contents

Held

Information under Section 2(f) includes material that can be accessed by a public authority (Registrar of Cooperative Societies) under any law, not limited to documents physically held. Registrar’s powers under Sections 65, 66, and Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, enable access to the requested documents without requiring formal enquiry or possession. Documents do not fall under Section 8 exemptions. Appeal dismissed, affirming transparency under the RTI Act.

Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82 and Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 followed.

Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 distinguished.

Against the Judgment dated 29.11.2024 in W.P. (C) No. 30694 of 2024 of High Court of Kerala

Appellant by Advs. Aparna Rajan, P. Ravindran (Sr.), Lakshmi Ramadas, M.R.Sabu, P. Deepak (Sr.), Sreedhar Ravindran

Respondents by Adv P.R. Ramachandran, (Party-In-Person), M. Ajay, SC, V. Tekchand, Sr. G.P.

Facts

The Appellant, a Cooperative Society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, was directed by the State Chief Information Commissioner to provide a member (Respondent No. 4) with copies of a resolution from its general body meeting and details of a construction contract under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The member had initially requested this information on 14 January 2023, which was denied by the Public Information Officer. After subsequent appeals, the State Chief Information Commissioner, following a remand by the Division Bench, ordered the Registrar of Cooperative Societies to access and provide the information. The Appellant challenged this order in a writ petition (W.P.(C) No. 30694 of 2024), which was dismissed by the Single Judge on 29 November 2024. The present appeal was filed under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958, against the Single Judge’s order.

Issues

Whether the information sought by Respondent No. 4 (construction contract details and general body meeting minutes) falls within the scope of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, as information accessible by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies.
Whether the Registrar’s power to access documents under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, extends to the documents requested, even if not physically held or formally accessed by the Registrar.
Whether the orders of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the Single Judge were legally sustainable.

Arguments

Appellant

The information sought is not accessible under the RTI Act unless it is physically held by the Registrar, as per Sections 19B and 66C of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, and Rule 24 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Rules, 1969.
Only documents explicitly listed under Section 66C (e.g., annual returns) or maintained, catalogued, and indexed under Section 4 of the RTI Act can be considered “information.”
The Registrar’s powers under Sections 65 and 66 (enquiry and inspection) are conditional and not invoked in this case, so the documents cannot be accessed.
Relying on Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82), the Appellant argued that only information already in the Registrar’s possession qualifies under the RTI Act.

Respondents

The State Chief Information Commissioner and Respondent No. 4 argued that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes information that can be accessed by a public authority (Registrar) under any law, not just information physically held.
The Registrar has broad supervisory and administrative powers under Sections 65, 66, and Rule 176 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, to access the requested documents.
The Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 clarified that information accessible by a public authority from a private body (like the Appellant) qualifies under the RTI Act, without requiring physical possession.

Holding

The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the orders of the State Chief Information Commissioner and the Single Judge. The court held:

The information sought (construction contract and general body meeting minutes) is accessible by the Registrar under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, particularly under Sections 65 (enquiry), 66 (inspection), and Rule 176 (power to rescind resolutions).
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines “information” as material that can be accessed by a public authority under any law, not limited to documents physically held or catalogued.
The Registrar’s statutory powers to access documents exist independently of their actual exercise, and no formal enquiry or inspection is required to trigger accessibility under the RTI Act.
The requested documents do not fall under the exemptions in Section 8 of the RTI Act (e.g., commercial confidence, personal privacy).

Reasoning

Interpretation of Section 2(f): The court emphasized the phrase “can be accessed” in Section 2(f), which indicates the legal entitlement of the Registrar to obtain documents, not their physical possession. This interpretation aligns with the RTI Act’s objective of promoting transparency.
Registrar’s Powers: Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, grant the Registrar broad authority to access books, records, and documents of a cooperative society, including during enquiries or inspections initiated on his own motion. Rule 176 further allows the Registrar to rescind resolutions, implying access to meeting minutes.
Supreme Court Precedents: The court distinguished Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497 (which dealt with information held by a public authority) and clarified that Thalappalam, (2013) 16 SCC 82 and Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481 support the view that information accessible from a private body (like a cooperative society) qualifies under the RTI Act.
No Exemptions Apply: The requested documents (construction contract and meeting minutes) do not involve commercial secrets, personal privacy, or other exemptions under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
Statutory Interpretation: The court rejected the Appellant’s argument that only documents listed in Section 66C or physically held by the Registrar qualify, as this would unduly restrict the scope of Section 2(f) and defeat the RTI Act’s purpose.

Disposition

The appeal was dismissed, affirming the Single Judge’s order and the State Chief Information Commissioner’s direction to provide the information to Respondent No. 4.

Significance

This judgment clarifies that under the RTI Act, information held by private bodies (like cooperative societies) is accessible if a public authority (e.g., Registrar) has the statutory power to obtain it, regardless of whether that power has been exercised. It reinforces the RTI Act’s broad scope in promoting transparency in entities subject to public authority oversight.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

What was the primary issue in the case of Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank v. State Chief Information Commissioner (2025 (4) KLR 103)?
a) Whether a cooperative society is a public authority under the RTI Act
b) Whether the Registrar must physically possess documents to disclose them under the RTI Act
c) Whether the information sought by Respondent No. 4 was accessible by the Registrar under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969
d) Whether the State Chief Information Commissioner had jurisdiction to hear the appeal
Answer: c) Whether the information sought by Respondent No. 4 was accessible by the Registrar under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969
Under which section of the Right to Information Act, 2005, was the definition of “information” central to the court’s reasoning?
a) Section 3
b) Section 2(f)
c) Section 8
d) Section 4
Answer: b) Section 2(f)
What documents did Respondent No. 4 seek from the Appellant Cooperative Society?
a) Annual financial statements and audit reports
b) Construction contract details and general body meeting minutes
c) Register of members and bye-laws
d) Employee records and salary details
Answer: b) Construction contract details and general body meeting minutes
Which statutory provisions of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, were relied upon to establish the Registrar’s power to access the requested documents?
a) Sections 19B and 66C
b) Sections 65, 66, and Rule 176
c) Sections 32 and 33
d) Sections 3 and 9
Answer: b) Sections 65, 66, and Rule 176
What was the court’s interpretation of the phrase “can be accessed” in Section 2(f) of the RTI Act?
a) It requires the public authority to physically possess the documents
b) It refers to documents catalogued and indexed under Section 4
c) It denotes the legal entitlement of the public authority to obtain documents under any law
d) It applies only to documents submitted during an ongoing enquiry
Answer: c) It denotes the legal entitlement of the public authority to obtain documents under any law
Which Supreme Court case was distinguished by the court as irrelevant to the facts of this case?
a) Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala
b) Subhash Chandra Agarwal
c) Aditya Bandopadhyay
d) Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay
Answer: c) Aditya Bandopadhyay
Why did the court hold that the requested documents were not exempt under the RTI Act?
a) They were already in the public domain
b) They did not fall under Section 8 exemptions like commercial confidence or personal privacy
c) They were catalogued and indexed by the Registrar
d) They were required for an ongoing enquiry
Answer: b) They did not fall under Section 8 exemptions like commercial confidence or personal privacy
What was the final outcome of the appeal in this case?
a) The appeal was allowed, and the Commissioner’s order was set aside
b) The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner’s and Single Judge’s orders
c) The case was remanded to the State Chief Information Commissioner
d) The court directed the Registrar to initiate an enquiry
Answer: b) The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Commissioner’s and Single Judge’s orders

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

What was the core dispute in the Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank case?
The dispute centered on whether a cooperative society was required to disclose a construction contract and general body meeting minutes to a member under the RTI Act, 2005, when the information was not physically held by the Registrar but could be accessed under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969.
Why did the Appellant argue that the information could not be disclosed?
The Appellant contended that only documents physically held by the Registrar, as per Sections 19B and 66C of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, or catalogued under Section 4 of the RTI Act, qualified as “information.” They argued that the Registrar’s powers under Sections 65 and 66 were conditional and not invoked, so the documents were not accessible.
How did the court interpret the scope of “information” under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act?
The court held that “information” under Section 2(f) includes any material that a public authority, like the Registrar, can access under any law, not just documents physically possessed or catalogued. The phrase “can be accessed” refers to the legal entitlement to obtain documents, regardless of whether the power has been exercised.
What role did the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, play in the judgment?
The court relied on Sections 65 (enquiry), 66 (inspection), and Rule 176 (power to rescind resolutions) to establish that the Registrar has broad statutory powers to access documents of a cooperative society, including those requested by Respondent No. 4, making them accessible under the RTI Act.
Were the requested documents exempt from disclosure under the RTI Act?
No, the court found that the construction contract and general body meeting minutes did not fall under Section 8 exemptions, such as commercial confidence, trade secrets, or personal privacy, and thus could be disclosed.
How did the court address the Appellant’s reliance on Supreme Court precedents?
The court distinguished Aditya Bandopadhyay, which dealt with information held by a public authority, as irrelevant. It relied on Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Subhash Chandra Agarwal to affirm that information accessible from a private body by a public authority qualifies under the RTI Act.
What was the significance of the court’s ruling for cooperative societies?
The ruling clarified that cooperative societies, though not public authorities, must disclose information that the Registrar can access under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, promoting transparency in their operations under the RTI Act.
What was the final decision of the Division Bench?
The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the State Chief Information Commissioner’s direction to provide the information and the Single Judge’s dismissal of the writ petition, affirming the member’s right to access the requested documents.

Muppathadam Service Co-Operative Bank v. State Chief Information Commissioner