Central Information Commission
Shri Pritpaul Singh vs President, Super Coop House Building ... on 17 September, 2009
734 PritpalsinghVsPresiSuperCoopHBSLtdChd 24 08 1
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Room No.308, B wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
Complaint No. CIC/WB/C/2008/00734
Complainant : Shri Pritpaul Singh
Respondent : President, Super Coop House Building
Society Ltd.
(through Shri Gopal Singh, President and Shri
Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate)
Date of Hearing : 24/8/2009
Date of Decision : 17/09/2009
Facts :-
The matter was heard at UT Guest House, Chandigarh on 26/05/2009. The Interim Order passed by the Commission is reproduced herebelow:-
"By his letter dated 1.4.2008, the complainant had requested for information on the following 6 points relating to Super Coop. House Building Society Ltd :-
"(i) Detail of payments made to Rajinder Singh Raj, Advocate alongwith detail of case.
(ii) Copy of Audit report w.e.f. 2005-2006-07.
(iii) Copy of detail of items on the basis of which revised schedules have been made
(iv) Copies of Proceeding book year before 15.10.2005 and after 21.1.2007 to till date.
(v) Appointment letter copy of New Contractor who is presently working.
(vi) Copy of my accounts mentioned on ledger."
2. As he did not receive any response from the Society, he has filed the present complaint before the Commission.
3. The matter was heard on 26.5.2009 at Chandigarh. The complainant appeared before the Commission. The Society is represented by Shri Gopal Singh, President and Advocate Raj. Shri Gopal Singh would submit a written representation which is taken on record and a copy thereof provided to the appellant. It is the submission of Shri Gopal Singh that the Society is not a Public Authority and, therefore, not required to provide any information under the Act.
734 PritpalsinghVsPresiSuperCoopHBSLtdChd 24 08 2
4. The matter is adjourned to 19.6.2009 at 1130 hrs. Let notice be issued to the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, to put in his appearance on the aforesaid date of hearing. The complainant would also be required to file a written representation with a copy to the President of the Society 03 days before the date of hearing."
2. The hearing was resumed on 19/06/2009. The proceedings of the Commission of this date are reproduced herebelow:-
"This is in continuation of this Commission's Interim Decision dated 26.5.2009. As scheduled, the matter was heard on 19th June, 2009. Complainant Prithipal Singh is present. The Society is represented by its President Shri Gopal Singh and Advocate Shri S.M. Bhatia.
2. It may be mentioned that the President of the Society had taken the stand that the Society in question is not a 'Public Authority' as defined in the RTI Act and, therefore, is not liable to furnish any information to the complainant. On the other hand, the complainant submits that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has all the authority to issue directions to the Society, so much so that the Societies are required even to open accounts in specified Banks, as per the directions of the Registrar of Co- operative Societies. It is also his submission that the Societies work under full control of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and, therefore, they can be deemed to be 'Public Authority' in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
3. Advocate Bhatia would submit that the 'Public Authority' has been defined in clause (h) of section 2 of the RTI Act. He has led the Commission through fall the sub clauses of clause (h) and would submit that the Society does not fall in any of the sub clauses. According to him, the society in question is not a pubic authority and, therefore, not liable to furnish any information to the complainant.
4. Inspector Krishna Kumar represents the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. A query was put to him as to whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies has any operational control over the functioning of the Co-operative Societies in his jurisdiction. To this, he would submit that under section 45 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, the Registrar has the authority to issue directions to a Society and if that society does not execute his instructions, then the Registrar can appoint an Administrator for that Society. The registrar also has the authority to dismiss the Society for disobeying his orders.
5. The matter in hand raises an important question of law. The Commission would like to be addressed in detail on this. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 23.7.2009 at 1230 hrs. Let notices be issued to the parties."
734 PritpalsinghVsPresiSuperCoopHBSLtdChd 24 08 3
3. Further hearing was held on 23/07/2009. The proceedings of the Commission are reproduced below:-
"This is in continuation of this Commission's Interim Decisions dated 25/06/2009 and 19/06/2009. As scheduled, the hearing was resumed on 23/07/2009. The following are present:-
(1) Shri Gopal Singh, President, Super Cooperative House Building Society Ltd.;
(2) Advocate Rajinder Singh Raj;
(3) Advocate S.M. Bhatia;
(4) Jasmer Singh, Secretary of the Society; &
(5) Krishan Kumar, Inspector, Cooperative Societies
Department.
2. The complainant, however, did not appear before the Commission and sent a fax message seeking adjournment on account of his indisposition. Given the fact that aforesaid persons have come all the way from Chandigarh for the hearing and also the fact that the complainant has not informed them of his intention to seek adjournment, the Commission thinks it fit and proper to hear the matter.
3. The main submissions of Advocate Rajinder Singh Raj are as follows:-
(i) that under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, which has been adopted by the UT of Chandigarh, the RCS has no authority whatsoever to call for any information other than that which have been specifically provided under the Act and such authority is confined to Annual Inspection of the Societies and Audit of Accounts etc. The RCS has overwhelming authority over the Society if the Managing Committee of the Society has been dismissed u/s 27 of the Act and Administrator is appointed, in its place. In that eventuality, section 28 of the Act confers certain powers on the Administrator but this is not the case in the matter in hand;
(ii) that when the Society does not have an Administrator and it is managed by its Managing Committee, it cannot be deemed to be a public authority, particularly when it has not received ay finances from the Central or the State Government or their instrumentalilties;
(iii) he has relied on the following authorities in this connection:-
(a) Allahabad High Court judgment dated 24/01/2008 in Dhara Singh Girls High School, Ghaziabad Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh;
(b) Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment dated 14/01/2008 in Dr. M.D. Sanatan Dharam Girls 734 PritpalsinghVsPresiSuperCoopHBSLtdChd 24 08 4 College, Ambala City Vs State Information Commissioner , Haryana;
(c) Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment dated 25/02/2008 in DAV College Trust Management Society Vs. Director of Public Instructions (Colleges), UT, Chandigarh.
According to Advocate Raj, the ratio of the aforesaid judgments is that a body or entity can be deemed to be a public authority only when it is funded either by the Central Government or State Government or their instrumentalities and not otherwise.
(iv) Advocate Raj had also relied on this Commission's
Decision dated 05/12/2008 in appeal No.
CIC/LS/A/2008/00008 (A.N. Rajput Vs. RCS, Chandigarh). Para 5 of the Decision is extracted below:-
"5. I am satisfied that the Milkfed Employees' Cooperative House Building Societies Limited, Chandigarh, is not a Public Authority as defined in section 2 (h) of the RTI Act and, therefore, the matter in hand does not fall in the domain of this Commission. Even so, certain irregularities appear to have been committed by the management. From the submission of the Appellant, it appears that the cost of flats has been unduly inflated. Shri Sangwan submits that it is possible for the Registrar to take action under section 28 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, as applicable to UT of Chandigarh and that they have already initiated some action in this regard."
(v) His overall submission is that the Society in question is not a public authority and, therefore, not liable to provide any information to the complainant herein.
4. Inspector Krishan Kumar would submit that copies of the Audit Reports of the Society up-til 2007 are available with the RCS Office and he has no objection to providing the same to the complainant. It is also his submission that when the Society is being managed by its Managing Committee, the RCS Office has no authority to call for informations requisitioned by the parties under the RTI Act.
5. As the matter in hand raises an important question of law, we think it proper to give another opportunity of hearing to the complainant. The matter is adjourned to 24/08/2009 at 11.30 hrs.
6. The opposite party need not appear on this date."
734 PritpalsinghVsPresiSuperCoopHBSLtdChd 24 08 5
4. As scheduled, the matter was again heard on 24/08/2009. Appellant Shri Pritpal Singh appeared before the Commission. He would submit that the Registrar of Cooperative Societies(RCS), Chandigarh, has the full and effective control of the Society under the law and is empowered to seek requested information from the Society and provide the same to him. He would also submit that RCS has taken such action in the past in some other cases. He would also plead that he is a member of the Society and not a third party and is, therefore, interested in the efficient functioning of the Society and it is for this reason that he has sought the requested information.
5. The main legal issue before this Commission is to determine whether the Cooperative Society in question can be said to be 'public authority'. Public authority has been defined in clause (h) of the section 2 of RTI ACT, which is reproduced below:-
"(h) "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,-
(a) by or under the Constitution;
(b) by any other law made by Parliament;
(c) by any other law made by State Legislature;
(d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate
Government, and includes any -
(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed;
(ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed,
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;"
A bare reading of the above clause would indicate that a private body or a Cooperative Society can be said to fall in the domain of this clause, if it is substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the appropriate Government. Admittedly, the Society in question has not received any funds either from the Central Government or the Government of UT of Chandigarh. By this logic, it cannot be said to be a public authority. Needless to say, once it is held that the Society in question is not a public authority, it has no liability to provide any information under the RTI Act.
6. However, the matter does not end there. It may be useful to refer to clause (f) of section 2 in this connection which is extracted below:-
"(f) "information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force;"
The underlined limb of the above clause indicates that such information can be called for from a private body as can be accessed by a public authority under any other 734 PritpalsinghVsPresiSuperCoopHBSLtdChd 24 08 6 law for the time being in force. Admittedly, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, has the authority under the law to seek certain informations from the Society in question. This Commission can, therefore, direct the RCS to call for such information from the Society in question as he is empowered to do under the law.
DECISION
7. In view of the above discussion, the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Chandigarh, is hereby directed to exercise his authority under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and to call for that part of the requested information from the Management of Super Cooperative House Building Society Limited, as he is empowered to do and provide the same to the appellant expeditiously.
8. The matter is disposed of in the above terms.
Sd/-
(M.L. Sharma) Central Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges, prescribed under the Act, to the CPIO of this Commission.
(K.L. Das)
Assistant Registrar
Tele: 011 2671 73 53
Fax: 011 2610 62 76
Copy to :- (1) Shri Pritpaul Singh,
5819, Sector - 38,
Chandigarh-160014.
(2) The Registrar,
Cooperative Societies,
U.T. Chandigarh.