Registrar Has Legal Power To Access Society Records | Kerala High Court Upholds RTI Right Of Co-Op Member Seeking Transparency
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu has held that documents of a cooperative society that can be accessed by the Registrar under statutory provisions constitute "information" for the purpose of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The Court upheld the direction of the State Chief Information Commissioner mandating the cooperative society to furnish such documents to the applicant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court confirmed that the Registrar has supervisory and administrative control under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, and thus can access the requested records.
A member of the appellant cooperative society approached the society seeking certain documents, including a copy of a resolution and details of a construction contract. When the society did not furnish the requested information, the member filed an application under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 before the State Public Information Officer. By an order dated 15 February 2023, the officer declined the request.
The member subsequently filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, which was disposed of on 8 May 2023. Dissatisfied, the member filed a second appeal before the State Chief Information Commissioner. The Commissioner initially rejected the appeal by order dated 14 September 2023, leading the member to challenge this decision before the High Court.
In proceedings in W.P.(C) No. 37938 of 2023, a learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on 8 April 2024. The matter then came up before a Division Bench in W.A. No. 729 of 2024. The Division Bench observed that before rejecting the application, the State Chief Information Commissioner should have examined whether the information could be accessed by the Registrar under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969 and the applicable Rules. The matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Following the remand, the State Chief Information Commissioner revisited the issue and, by order dated 17 August 2024, allowed the appeal. It was concluded that since the Registrar exercises supervisory and administrative control over the cooperative society, the information sought could be accessed by the Registrar and, accordingly, directed that it should be provided to the applicant.
The appellant society challenged this direction in W.P.(C) No. 30694 of 2024. The Single Judge, however, upheld the Commissioner's order and dismissed the writ petition on 29 November 2024. Aggrieved, the cooperative society filed the present writ appeal before the Division Bench.
The appellant society, represented by senior counsel, contended that only specific documents enumerated in Section 66C and Rule 24 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and Rules are accessible to the Registrar and can be disclosed under the RTI Act. It was argued that the information sought in the present case did not fall under these categories and that unless the Registrar had already accessed the records through inquiry or inspection, such information could not be considered as held by a public authority.
Reliance was placed on Supreme Court decisions in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala, and Central Public Information Officer v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, to support the argument that the RTI Act does not permit directions for obtaining documents beyond what is held or controlled by public authorities.
The State Chief Information Commissioner and Respondent No. 4 (party in person) opposed the appeal. It was argued that the RTI Act provides for the disclosure of information accessible by public authorities, not only that which is in physical possession. They submitted that the Registrar has ample powers under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, to access such records and hence the requested documents fall within the scope of "information" under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
The Division Bench analysed the statutory scheme in detail. It noted: “The RTI Act confers a right to information under Section 3 and places obligations on public authorities. Section 2(f) includes 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 Court recorded: “The Registrar of Cooperative Societies, functioning under the Act of 1969, is a public authority and has been conferred with statutory powers. He is duty-bound to comply with obligations under the RTI Act and furnish information.”
Referring to the powers under Sections 65 and 66 of the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act, 1969, the Court stated: “The Registrar can supervise and inspect the books and records of the society on his own motion. Such inspection includes summoning any person responsible for custody of records to produce them.”
The Division Bench rejected the contention that actual exercise of power to access is necessary. It recorded: “There is a difference between the existence of power and the actual use of power. The second part of the definition of ‘Information’ postulates existence of power to access and not its actual exercise.”
On interpretation, the Court observed: “Reading of Section 2(f) makes it clear that Parliament has deliberately employed the phrase ‘can access’ to emphasise the legal entitlement. The phrase signifies that the right extends beyond mere physical custody and includes documents a Registrar has statutory power to access.”
The Court further stated: “This does not imply the Registrar can only ask for documents when an inquiry is already in progress. Imposing such a requirement would be contrary to the intent and purpose of the statute.”
With respect to exemptions under the RTI Act, the Court clarified: “Certain documents are exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the RTI Act. In the present case, the construction agreement and minutes of the General Body meeting do not fall within these exemptions.”
The Court concluded: “The learned Single Judge has analysed the provisions and decisions and concluded that the information sought is accessible by the Registrar. No case is made out to interfere.”
The Court noted that not all documents could automatically be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It recorded that certain categories of documents are exempted under Section 8 of the RTI Act.
These include information expressly forbidden by courts, documents whose disclosure may constitute contempt of court, matters involving commercial confidence, trade secrets, or intellectual property, and information that could harm the competitive position of a third party.
The Court further observed that disclosure could also be refused for information available in a fiduciary relationship unless larger public interest warranted its release, and for matters endangering life or physical safety, or impeding investigation or prosecution.
It was recorded that documents relating purely to personal information, which do not have a relationship to public activity or interest and would cause unwarranted invasion of privacy, could also be denied unless the authority under the Act decided otherwise.
In the present case, however, it was noted that the documents sought — namely the construction agreement and minutes of the last general body meeting — did not fall within the scope of exemptions provided under Section 8.
The Court observed that the learned Single Judge had carefully considered the appellant’s challenge against the order passed by the State Chief Information Commissioner.
After examining the relevant provisions of law and decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court, the Single Judge had concluded that the information sought was accessible by the Registrar and therefore upheld the Commissioner's direction.
The Division Bench found no case made out to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Aparna Rajan, P. Ravindran (Sr.), Lakshmi Ramadas, M.R. Sabu, P. Deepak (Sr.), Sreedhar Ravindran
For the Respondents: P.R. Ramachandran (Party-in-person), Sri M. Ajay (Standing Counsel for State Information Commission), Sri V. Tekchand (Senior Government Pleader)
Case Title: Muppathadam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. State Chief Information Commissioner & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:28555
Case Number: W.A. No. 2105 of 2024
Bench: Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu
[Read/Download order]
