The Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Ltd. Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. by means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs- (1) to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-7-2010, passed by the respondent no.2, annexure no.1 to the writ petition, whereby a penalty of rs. 5,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner. (2) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 not to give effect to the order dated 30-7-2010, annexure no.1 to this writ petition. (3) to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to ask the petitioner to reply the informations sought under rights to information act. 2. the main ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner is a cooperative society and is not owned and controlled by the state government and.....

Judgment:

1. By means of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs-

(1) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 30-7-2010, passed by the respondent No.2, Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- was imposed upon the petitioner.

(2) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 not to give effect to the order dated 30-7-2010, Annexure No.1 to this writ petition.

(3) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents 1 and 2 not to ask the petitioner to reply the informations sought under Rights to Information Act.

2. The main ground taken by the petitioner in this petition is that the petitioner is a Cooperative Society and is not owned and controlled by the State Government and is not a ‘public authority’ within the meaning of Right to Information Act. In paragraph- 19 of the writ petition it is further averred that the petitioner mill is engaged in doing the business of crushing of sugar cane and making the sugar and is involved in profit making business as such the same is also exempted from the purview of R.T.I. Act, as has been provided under Section 8(1) (d & e), which provide for exemption for the disclosure of the information.

3. Learned counsel for respondents 1 and 2 has contended that the petitioner is a ‘public authority’ and the petitioner cannot be exempted from supplying the information.

4. From perusal of impugned order it reveals that this point has not been dealt with by the Information Commissioner, as to whether the petitioner is a ‘public authority’ or not within the meaning of the Act.

“Public authority” has been defined in Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act, which is reproduced as below- “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 Organization substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government.”

5. Further, ‘right to information’ has been defined in Section 2(j) of the R.T.I., which is also quoted below- “Right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to –

(i) inspection of work, documents, records,

(ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies of documents or records,

(iii) taking certified samples of material,

(iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device.”

6. Therefore, from perusal of clause (j) of Section 2 of R.T.I. Act, it is quite clear that the information under this Act can be obtained only from a ‘public authority’.

7. As the petitioner has raised specific plea that it is not a public authority and since this issue has not been dealt with by the respondent No.2/ Information Commissioner, as to whether the petitioner is a public authority or not, in the impugned order, therefore, it needs a categorical finding by the Information Commissioner.

8. In view of above, the respondent No.2, is directed to hear the petitioner afresh and pass a speaking and reasoned order on the issue that whether the petitioner is a public authority or not, within the meaning of R.T.I. Act. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file additional objection/evidence, if any, in support of its contention raised in the writ petition, before the respondent No.2, within a period of four weeks, from today and the respondent No.2 shall dispose of the Second Appeal expeditiously, as early as possible, after hearing the petitioner as well as the respondent No.3. Till the decision is taken afresh in the matter, as directed above, the impugned order shall remain in abeyance.

9. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of finally.