Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Adarsh Kumar Dua vs Office Of The Registrar Cooperative ... on 28 January, 2026

                                    के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                               नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं     ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2025/134701

 Adarsh Kumar Dua                                            ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                     VERSUS
                                      बनाम
 CPIO
 Registrar of Co-Operative
 Societies, GNCTD                                         ... ितवादीगण/Respondent

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

 RTI : 26.06.2025              FA    : 21.07.2025            SA       : 15.10.2025

 CPIO : 16.07.2025             FAO : Not on record           Hearing : 13.01.2026


Date of Decision: 27.01.2026

                                     CORAM
                Chief Information Commissioner: RAJ KUMAR GOYAL
                                     ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.06.2025, before the CPIO, Registrar of Co-Operative Societies, GNCTD, seeking information regarding Bannu Biradari CGHS Ltd. Pitampura, as under:

"(a) Provide cash memo / vouchers / challans of expenditure incurred (Rs.50,000/- ) as payment to Sundry Creditors in the F.Y.2023-2024

(b) Copy of Agenda & minutes of monthly executive meeting in which proposal to engage sundry Creditors was passed, along with copy of MOU & Service level Agreement (SLA) entered with the contractor/supplier.

(c) Copy of the Parameters for monitoring performance of the said contractor/ supplier/Service provider.

(d) Penalty Leviable for non-observance of the terms of contract & Certified copy of the contract.

(e) Copy of entries of goods supplied in stock Register, detail of Area of service Received."

2. The CPIO & Assistant Registrar GH/Sec-I, RCS, replied to the RTI Application vide letter dated 16.07.2025, as under:

"No such information is available in the file/kept in records of the Group Housing section-1 However, the applicant being a member or creditor of the society can seek the information from the PIO of the concerned Society U/s 139 of DCS Act, 2003."

3. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.07.2025. The FAA's order, if any, is not available on record.

4. Aggrieved with the non-receipt of the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 15.10.2025.

Hearing Proceedings & Decision

5. The Appellant was present during the hearing in person. On behalf of the Respondent, a Senior Assistant sought to represent the case. The prayer of the said official was found to be in contravention of para 3(a) & (b) of the notice of hearing issued on 09.12.2025, therefore, the Bench took exception and denied him leave to plead/represent the CPIO.

6. The Appellant's contentions were gathered from the grounds of the second appeal, primarily contending that RCS has the authority and wherewithal to access the records of the averred Society, and that the extant DCS Rules, 2007 stipulates the nature of records ought to be retained for definite periods of time by RCS.

7. The Commission took on record the written submissions dated 12.01.2026 filed by Satish Kumar, CPIO & Assistant Registrar, GH/SEC-1, RCS, GNCTD, as under:

"1. That the undersigned is in receipt of the notice dated 09.12.2025 whereby it has been directed to submit written submission in respect of RTI application dated 20.08.2024 which was filed by Sh. Adarsh Kumar Dua.

2. It is most respectfully submitted that this office has already been given reply to appellant within time period as per provision of RTI Act, 2005 on dated 25.09.2024(copy enclosed). The information sought by the applicant is part and parcel of the working/functioning of the Managing Committee of the society and the records related to the same are in the custody of the Managing Committee only.

3. However, notably, a CPIO is only obligated to provide information that is "held"

by the public authority. The minutes of the Managing Committee or that of AGM's and attendance registers related thereto are internal documents of the society and are not part of the routine filings submitted to the RCS office. The RCS cannot be turned into a "collection agency" for a member's private grievance.

4. Notably in this reference, Supreme Court in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2013): has held that cooperative societies are not public authorities. While the Registrar can "access" information under certain laws, the Court clarified that this power should be exercised for regulatory or public interest purposes, not to satisfy the private curiosity or personal disputes of individual members.

5. Besides, the applicant is a member of the Society and, therefore, is bound by the DCS Act, 2003. Under Section 139 of the DCS Act, the member has a specific, faster, and direct statutory right to inspect the very records they are seeking (minutes of meetings, attendance, etc.). In case the any member is denied access to such records, the same section of the act under its clause (2) provides for effective remedy too. The said section is reproduced as under:

Right to information.

139. (1) Any member or creditor having interest in the affairs of the co-operative society may seek information relating to any transaction of the co-operative society and for that purpose may be provided a certified copy of any document within thirty Page 3 of 8 Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2025/134701 days from the date of receipt of application relating to such transaction on payment of such fee as may be specified.

(2) Where a member or creditor having interest in affairs of a society seeking information prefers an appeal to the Registrar stating that the officer of the society without any reasonable cause, has refused to receive his application for providing information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub- section (1) or has refused the request for information or knowingly given incorrect information or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, the Registrar, after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the officer of the society and the appellant, may either reject the appeal; or direct the officer of the society to furnish information within the period specified in the order or such extended period as may be allowed, and in case of default the Registrar may impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till the information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed ten thousand rupees which shall be recoverable as arrears of land revenue in case of default in payment.

6. Further in this regard, the following case law may kindly be referred: Delhi High Court in Vimla Dhiman v. State (2013): Wherein, the court noted that when a special law (DCS Act, 2003) provides for a specific remedy or offense, it should be prioritized over general provisions (RTI Act, 2005, in this case.)

7. Thus, by filing this appeal before the Hon'ble CIC, and by filing repeated RTIs against the RCS pertaining to such matters, the applicant is intentionally bypassing the procedures laid down in the DCS Act/Bye-laws. This constitutes an "abuse of the process of law" as it puts an undue administrative burden on the RCS office to act as an intermediary for documents that the applicant can legally demand directly, of course, by proving that the applicant while seeking such desired information is serving the larger public interest/or has interest in the affairs of the society and not individual/personal interest. Further, as per Section 7(9) of the RTI Act in case RCS is forced to fetch, verify, and photocopy voluminous records (like years of minutes/attendance), it would unnecessarily disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.

8. Therefore, on the basis of above, as the information sought is not physically held in the records of the RCS office, the applicant, being a member, has a direct right of inspection under Section 139 of the DCS Act, 2003, which he has failed to exercise, for the reasons best known to him only; and the PIO is not withholding information, rather is asking the applicant to follow the "due process" of the law. Hon'ble CIC may be requested to dispose of the matter and may also be requested to issue strict warning to the applicant for misusing the provisions of RTI Act, unnecessarily burdening the resources of the public Authority.

9. Accordingly, it is humbly requested to set aside the said notice."

8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, observes that the CPIO's reply does not specifically mention as to why this information could not be accessed from the Bannu Biradari CGHS Ltd. Pitampura, keeping in view the harmonious reading of Section 2(f) and 2(j) of the RTI Act. The CPIO has chosen to convey to the Appellant that, the information could be sought from the 'PIO of the concerned Society U/s 139 of DCS Act, 2003'. Further, the sum and substance of the CPIO's written submissions is that the Appellant has an alternate mechanism to access the information under Section 139 of the DCS Act, 2003. It is also argued that as per the Apex Court's ruling dated 07.10.2013, in the matter of Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank Ltd. and others vs. State of Kerala & Ors. CIVIL APPEAL No. 9017 OF 2013 (2013), the Registrar can access information of the cooperative societies under certain laws but only for 'regulatory or public interest purposes, not to satisfy the private curiosity or personal disputes of individual members.'

9. In respect of the CPIO's contention that an alternate mechanism to access the information is available to the Appellant, a judgment of the Apex Court dated 11.04.2019, in the matter of Institute of Companies Secretaries of India vs. Paras Jain, CIVIL APPEAL No. 5665/2014, is found relevant and applicable in terms of an obiter dictum for the instant matter, as the Court held-

"10. Thus it is clear that the avenue for seeking certified copies as well as inspection is provided both in the Right to Information Act as well as the statutory guidelines of the appellant.

12. Be that as it may, Guideline no.3 of the appellant does not take away from Rule 4, The Right to Information (Regulation of Fees and Cost) Rules, 2005 which also entitles the candidates to seek inspection and certified copies of their answer scripts. In our opinion, the existence of these two avenues is not mutually exclusive and it is up to the candidate to choose either of the routes....." Emphasis Supplied

10. Similarly, per contra to the contention of the CPIO in the context of the Thalappalam (supra) judgment, the Commission notes that the Apex Court in the said judgment observed and held as under:

"52. Registrar of Cooperative Societies functioning under the Cooperative Societies Act 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 respective Act under which he is functioning. He is also duty bound to comply with the obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information to a citizen 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. Consequently, apart from the information as is available to him, under Section 2(f), he can also gather those information from the Society, to the extent permitted by law. Registrar is also not obliged to disclose those information if those information fall under Section 8(1)(j) of the Act...." Emphasis Supplied

11. Now, it is gathered from the archives of the Commission that in one such earlier matter of the Appellant, decided on 18.08.2025 vide Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2024/108176, after hearing the CPIO of the Respondent office along with the representatives of the averred Cooperative society, in respect of a RTI Application Page 6 of 8 Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2025/134701 dated 31.10.2023, seeking similar nature of records from RCS as requested in the instant RTI Application, directions were issued as under:

"11. In furtherance of hearing proceedings, the Respondent is directed to facilitate opportunity of inspection of relevant records at the Bannu Biradari Cooperative CGHS Ltd, Pitampura, Delhi through his authorized officer, to the Appellant on a mutually decided date and time within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Before giving a date to the appellant, the Respondent should supply him a list of files connected with the query in the RTI application giving File Nos., Subject of the file, and total number of pages of correspondence in each file. Further, on the day of inspection, all relevant records must be brought at one place to facilitate inspection and not make the Appellant run around various departments of the Respondent Public Authority. Intimation of date and time should be sent to the Appellant well in advance in writing. Copy of records as may be desired by the Appellant be provided to him upon receipt of requisite fees as per RTI Rules. Information which are exempt under the RTI Act may be redacted/severed."

12. In view of the foregoing, the Commission directs the CPIO to ensure that the action ordered vide decision dated 18.08.2025 in Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2024/108176 is carried out in the same manner with respect to the instant RTI Application. The said direction shall be complied with by the CPIO within six weeks of the receipt of this order, under intimation to the Commission.

13. Furthermore, the Commission takes exception to the absence of the CPIO or an authorized representative (in terms of para 3(a) & (b) of the notice of hearing issued on 09.01.2026) during the hearing, without any advance prayer for leave, instead, seeking to 'set aside the notice', vide para 9 of the written submissions of the CPIO (reproduced verbatim under para 7 above). Now, therefore, the CPIO is directed to send an explanation stating the reasons for acting in defiance of the stipulations contained in the notice of hearing dated 09.01.2026. The said written explanation of the CPIO must reach the Commission, within two weeks of the receipt of this order, without fail. The CPIO shall note that recurrence of similar lapses/laxity in the future will attract stringent action as per the provisions of the RTI Act.

14. It is further relevant to observe that the FAA has also abdicated its statutory duty under the RTI Act to decide the instant First Appeal, which renders the channel of First Appeal redundant.

15. A copy of this order is endorsed to the FAA to take note of the observations of the Commission at para 14 above and to ensure that First Appeal(s) are decided as per the mandate of the RTI Act, without fail.

16. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

A copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(Raj Kumar Goyal) (राज कुमार गोयल) Chief Information Commissioner (मु सूचना आयु ) िदनां क/Date: 27.01.2026 Authenticated true copy Bijendra Kumar (िबज कुमार) Dy. Registrar (उप पं जीयक) 011-26186535 Page 8 of 8 Second Appeal No. CIC/RECOS/A/2025/134701 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)