Mr.

Preeti Goyal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 September, 2010

Central Information Commission

Mr.Preeti Goyal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000657
File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000658

(Hearing at Chandigarh)

Appellant : Preeti Goyal

Public Authority : Chandigarh State Co-operative Bank Ltd.

Date of Hearing : 19.7.2010

Date of Decision : 16.9.2010

FACTS

The aforesaid two appeals have been filed by Ms Preeti Goyal concerning Chandigarh State
Cooperative Bank. It has, therefore, been decided to dispose them of through a common order.

2. The matter is called for hearing today dated 19.07.2010. The appellant is present alongwith her
husband Shri Sulkshan Goyal. The Public Authority is represented by Shri N.P.S. Randhawa, Joint
Registrar, Cooperaive Societies, Chandigarh, and Shri Sukhchain Singh Dhillon, General Manager.
The case-wise position is as under :-

File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000657

3. Vide RTI application dated 30.07.2009, appellant had requested for the following information :-

"1. Please provide the information that any loan in any category was sanctioned by your bank since
01.01.2000, in the either name of Shri Bhag Singh, Pardeep Singh, Gurmeet Singh, Harkamal Singh
or M/s Bhag Furniture on the following address :-

(a) Plot No. 92/4, VPO - Maloya, Chandigarh(UT)

(b) House No. 134, VPO - Maloya, Chandigarh (UT)."

4. As the appellant did not receive any information from the CPIO, she had filed the first appeal. The
First Appellate Authority vide order dated 10.11.2009 had directed the General Manager,
Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank to supply the requisite information to the appellant.

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/148403858/ 1

 Mr.Preeti Goyal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 September, 2010

5. During the hearing, the appellant submits that the General Manager has not complied with the
order of the AA. Nor has he filed any appeal against the Appellate Authority's order. Shri Dhillon
would respond that it is not correct to say that he has not given any reply to the RTI application. He
produces a copy of his letter dated 4.9.2009 vide which he had informed the appellant that the
Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank was a Cooperative Society registered under the Punjab State
Cooperative Societies Act, 1961, and was not a Public Authority and, therefore, not liable to provide
any information to the appellant.

6. On a query from the Commission as to why the order of the Appellate Authority was not
implemented by him, Shri Dhillon produces a copy of letter dated 18.11.2009 addressed to Joint
Registrar, Cooperative Societies(AA) stating therein that Shri Pradeep Singh in respect of whom the
appellant had sought information had served a notice on the Bank to the effect that procedure
prescribed under section 11 of the RTI Act had not been strictly followed by the Appellate Authority
in passing the impugned order. He also produces another letter dated 8.12.2009 addressed by him
to the Joint Registrar, operative para of which is reproduced below :-

"Your goodself had directed the bank vide order No. 5493 & 5495 dated 24.11.2009
that the information desired by the appellant may please be supplied within 15 days.
Shri Pardeep Singh, Junior Clerk has filed an application in the court of Hon'ble Joint
Registrar Cooperative Societies, U.T., Chandigarh in which he has requested not to
supply the information to Smt. Preeti Goyal R/o H. No. 10, Sector 23-A, Chandigarh
as per Section 11 of the RTI Act, 2005 (copy enclosed). He has also stated in his
application that the information is being sought by Smt. Preeti Goyal with malicious
intent as he is a complainant and a key witness in one bribery case which is underway
in the CBI Court, Chandigarh in which the husband of Smt. Preeti Goyal is the
accused. Smt. Preeti Goyal has also requested the income tax office to supply the
information regarding Shri Pardeep Singh and his family members under the RTI
Act, 2005. The income Tax office has also not supplied the information to Smt. Preeti
Goyal being the third party information(copy enclosed)."

7. Shri Dhillon forcefully pleads that the Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank is not a Public
Authority in terms of section 2(h) of the RTI Act and, therefore, is not liable to disclose any
information to the appellant. The appellant, however, is not satisfied with the explanation given by
Shri Dhillon.

8. It is her submission that Government money has gone into the funding of the Cooperative Bank.
Besides, the Managing Director of the Bank is none other than Additional Deputy Commissioner of
Chandigarh. Thus, looked at from any angle, the Cooperative Bank is a Public Authority and,
therefore, falls in the ambit of RTI Act.

9. Shri Randhawa intervenes at this juncture and submits that the total contribution of the
Chandigarh Administration to the Cooperative Bank is only Rs. 32 lacs which is less than 1% of the
share capital of the bank and, therefore, it cannot be said that the Bank is substantially financed by
Chandigarh Administration. As regards the control of the Managing Director over the Bank, Shri

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/148403858/ 2

 Mr.Preeti Goyal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 September, 2010

Randhawa submits that the Managing Director cannot take any decision suo- motu and all decisions
are taken as per majority opinion.

File No.CIC/LS/A/2010/000658

10. Vide RTI application dated 15.07.2009, the appellant had sought certain personal information
about Pardeep Singh, Clerk-cum-Cashier of Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd. Vide letter
dated 6.10.2009, the General Manager of the Bank had informed the appellant that the Bank did not
fall in the ambit of RTI Act. The Appellate Authority, however, had reversed the decision of CPIO
vide order dated 10.11.2009.

11. The appellant submits that the Appellate Authority's order has not been implemented.

12. Shri Dhillon raises the same legal issues as have been discussed in the previous case.

DECISION & REASONS

13. The matter in hand raises two pertinent issues : one, whether the Chandigarh State Cooperative
Bank is a 'public authority' in terms of section 2

(h) of the RTI Act; and second, whether disclosure of the requested information would attract the
bar of section 2 (j) of the said Act.

14. As regards the first issue, it has been the consistent view of the Commission that the Cooperative
Societies do not quality for designation as public authority. This view was taken by this Commission
in File No CIC/WB/C/2008/00734 (Pritpaul Singh Vs President Super Coop House Building
Society Ltd) decided on 17.9.2009. Paras 05 thereof is extracted below :- "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;"

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/148403858/ 3

 Mr.Preeti Goyal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 September, 2010

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."

15. Coming to the present case, it is to be noted that as per the submission of Shri Randhawa, the
contribution of the Chandigarh Administration to the Cooperative Bank is less than 1% of its share
capital and, therefore, it can not be said to be substantially financed by the appropriate Government.

16. Besides, Shri Dhillon has filed a written representation dated 16.7.2010 before the Commission
in which he has relied on certain decisions of the Karnataka Information Commission, Karnataka
High Court and Bombay High Court etc, the ratio whereof is that the Cooperative Banks do not fall
in the ambit of section 2 (h) of the RTI Act. The relevant para of the representation is extracted
below :-

"In the latest judgment reported as 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 394 - Bidar District Central
Cooperative Bank Limited, Bidar versus the Karnataka Information Commission,
Bangalore and another and 2009(5) RCR (Civil) 833 - Dattaprasad Cooperative
Housing Society Ltd Vs The Karnataka Information Commission, Bangalore and
another, it has been held by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court that cooperative
society does not fall within the purview of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Similar view
has been taken by the Bombay High Court in a judgment reported as AIR 2009
Bombay 75, wherein it has been held that a Cooperative Bank registered under the
Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act is not a public authority."

17. We have no material before us to take a contrary view. We, therefore, hold that the Chandigarh
State Cooperative Bank is not a public authority and, therefore, does not fall in the ambit of RTI Act.
This being so, we need not deal with the second issue.

18. In the premises, the appeals are dismissed.

Order reserved and pronounced today dated 16th September, 2010.

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 Address of parties :-

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/148403858/ 4

 Mr.Preeti Goyal vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 16 September, 2010

1. Shri Sukhchain Singh, General Manager-cum-CPIO, Chandigarh State Cooperative Bank Ltd., HO
: SCO-1088-89, Sector-22-B, Chandigarh.

2. Ms Preeti Goyal, H. No. 10, Sector-23-A, Chandigarh(UT).

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/148403858/ 5