Moneylife:
Pune: Saturday, 28 November 2015.
Some recent
decisions by Information Commissioner Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu mention that the
President and Secretary of Co-operative Housing Societies are deemed PIOs under
the RTI. The Supreme Court, however, has ruled that only cooperative societies
owned, controlled or funded by the state fall under RTI ambit. Let’s take a
look at this ever controversial and much discussed issue
Case 1:
CIC Decision:
21 October 2015
Ashok
Sardana vs Registrar of Cooperative Societies
Right to
Information (RTI) appellant Ashok Sardana had sought information regarding Nav
Sansad Vihar Cooperative Group Housing Society. He wanted copy of the complete
noting of case in respect of Vijay Sardana membership case, under Section 25 of
Department of Registrar Co-operative Society Act (DCS).
Having
received no information from the PIO and claiming non-compliance of Order from
the First Appellate Authority (FAA), he approached the Central Information
Commission (CIC) with his second appeal. During the hearing, Information
Commissioner Prof M Sridhar Acharyulu (Madabhushi Sridhar), passed the
following order which mentions the President of the co-operative housing
society (CHS) as the deemed Public Information Officer (PIO).
The order
states:
The
Commission having heard the submissions and perused the record, directs the
President of the Nav Sansad Vihar CGHS, considering him as deemed PIO under the
RTI Act, to furnish the information…”within 15 days from the date of receipt of
this order.
The
Commission also directs the PIO/ARCS concerned and the President of the said
Housing Society to be present before the Commission…”
“… In
response to the above notice, the PIO, BK Puri, ARCS was present before the
Commission and made submissions that they had directed the Housing Society on
1-10-2014 to provide information to the appellant. But they have not complied so far. The society is also not represented by any of
its representatives as directed by the Commission in its earlier order. In view of this, the Commission directs the
Secretary/deemed PIO of the Housing Society to show cause as to why maximum
penalty should not be imposed on him for not complying with the Commission’s
order and for not furnishing the information to the appellant within the
prescribed period. His explanation
should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
Case 2:
CIC Decision:
21 October 2015
Mohan Lal
Jain vs GNCTD
Mohan Lal
Jain, through his RTI application had submitted that his flat was on the top
floor and the seepage coming through the roof, has to be taken care of by the
Society as per rules. The CHS has not taken any action. The respondent
authority summoned the President of the society on 18-6-2014 and the Society
assured the Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ARCS) to attend to
the Appellant’s grievance. But nothing was done. In view of this the Commission
directed the President of the CHS to show cause as to why maximum penalty
should not be imposed on him for not furnishing the information to the
appellant within the prescribed period as directed by the FAA. His explanation
should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this
order.
Case 3
CIC Decision:
12 December 2014
Ramesh Hirani
from Baroda filed a RTI application dated 27 August 2012 seeking information
with respect to compliance of the CIC Order dated 4 May 2012, regarding his
expulsion from the CHS that he was residing, that is, the Navkunj Co-operative
Housing Society. The PIO, during the hearing before the Commission stated that
in spite of writing four times to the Navkunj Cooperative Group Housing
Society, in 2013, the said Society has not sent the files concerning the
expulsion of the appellant. Hence, they
replied to the appellant that unless his expulsion is approved by them, he does
not stand expelled from the Society as per law.
When the
Commission queried the representatives of the Registration of Co-operative
Societies, as to what penal action they can take against the Society for not
replying to them, they stated that they can only supersede the Management
Committee of the Society under Section 37 of the DCS Act and appoint an
Administrator for the same. They cannot
derecognise the society. They suggested that the President or Secretary of the Management Committee of the Society
should be held responsible for obstruction of the information to the
appellant.
The order
stated: “The Commission, therefore, holds the President/ Secretary of the
Management Committee of Nav Kunj Cooperative Group Housing Society as deemed
PIOs as far as the breach of Right to Information of the appellant is concerned
as they refused to respond to four letters written by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, who is the regulator.
The Commission considers this as a deliberate obstruction on continuity of
information to the appellant and hence the Commission issues Show Cause Notice
to the President/Secretary of the Nav Kunj CGHS to explain why maximum penalty
cannot be imposed against them under Section 20 of the RTI Act, considering
them as deemed PIOs of the Society.”
Case 4
CIC Decision:
30 September 2015
BC Raana
vs Registrar of Co-operative Housing Society (RCS)
Raana is a
member of the Himachal Pradesh Co-operative Group Housing Society. He had, by
his RTI application, sought to know the action taken by the RCS on his
complaint dated 12 July 2012, against his housing society which had allegedly
misappropriated Rs5 crore. Having received no information, he filed first
appeal. Claiming non-furnishing of information, he approached the Commission in
second appeal.
The CIC order
stated that, “The RCS is under an obligation to take action against the Society
based on the inquiry report. But they are silent on this and also not
furnishing any information to the appellant in this regard. The Commission
having heard the submissions and perused the record directs the PIO to show
cause as to why penalty should not be imposed on him for not furnishing
information to the appellant within the prescribed period. His explanation
should reach the Commission within 21 days from the date of receipt of this
order.”
The
Commission further directed the PIO of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies
to furnish the information to the appellant within 15 days from the date of
receipt of this order. (Which implies that the RCS is duty bound to get
information from the relevant housing society as it comes under the RTI Act.)
According to
RTI activist Vijay Kumbhar, with the enactment of the 97th amendment to the
Constitution of India and its inclusion in Article 19 of the Constitution,
formation of cooperative societies has become one of the fundamental rights of
an Indian citizen. “Besides, they have been given the status of local
self-government like rural and urban municipal bodies in Part 9 of the
Constitution. Cooperative societies have thus come under the ambit of the Right
to Information Act. Some recent CIC decisions show that the President and the
Secretary of housing societies have been termed as Deemed PIOs,” he said.
He says, “As
per Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, “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 the State Legislature;
(d) by
notification issued or order made by the appropriate government, and now as per
Section 2
(h) (a) of
RTI Act, any cooperative society has become an ‘authority’ or ‘body’ or
“institution of self-government” established or constituted by or under the
Constitution and hence, it comes under
the ambit of the RTI Act.
According to
Advocate Aruna Giri’s posting in www.lawyersclubofindia.com, “This judgement
differentiates the coop societies into two categories. A Category- Cooperative
societies owned or controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central
Government or formed, established or constituted by law made by Parliament or
State Legislature. B Category- All other cooperative societies. The Supreme
Court says only the B category will not come under the RTI Act.
“I
reproduce the order of the Supreme Court:
"12. We
are in these appeals concerned only with the co-operative societies registered
or deemed to be registered under the Co-operative Societies Act, which are not
owned, controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central Government
or formed, established or constituted by law made by Parliament or State
Legislature.”
"51. We
have found, on facts, that the Societies, in these appeals, are not public
authorities and, hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information sought
for by a citizen under the RTI Act. All the same, if there is any dispute on
facts as to whether a particular Society is a public authority or not, the
State Information Officer can examine the same and find out whether the Society
in question satisfies the test laid in this judgment.”
.JPG)
.JPG)
