Co-op Bank Member To Get Construction Agreement And Meeting Minutes Under RTI, As Supreme Court Says Registrar Need Not Await Inquiry

The fourth respondent, a member of the appellant Co-operative Bank, sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 a copy of the Bank’s construction agreement with a Labour Co-operative Society and the minutes of its last General Body Meeting.

The request was pursued before the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and, on successive challenges, the State Information Commissioner and the High Court ultimately upheld the member’s right to the documents.

The Bank appealed, arguing that it was not a public authority and that the Registrar could not access its records absent a pending inquiry under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969.

Section 2(f) of the RTI Act includes information relating to a private body that a public authority can access under another law; Sections 2(j) and 3 confer a right to access information held by or under the control of a public authority, subject to applicable exemptions.

Under Sections 65(2) and 66 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, the Registrar has access to a Society’s records for inquiry-related purposes and supervisory inspection, respectively.

Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India v. Subhash Chandra Agarwal, (2020) 5 SCC 481, recognises that “under the control” includes information relating to a private body that a public authority has a statutory right to access, subject to applicable conditions and restrictions.

Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank Ltd. v. State of Kerala, (2013) 16 SCC 82, does not preclude such access where the Registrar’s statutory powers permit it.

Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(j) protect, respectively, qualifying commercial-confidential information and personal information; CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, (2011) 8 SCC 497, confirms that access remains subject to the Act’s exemptions.

The Bank’s status as a non-public authority did not determine the issue: Section 2(f) covers private-body information that the Registrar can access under statute.

The Court held that Section 65(2) access cannot depend on a prior decision to initiate an inquiry, because the Registrar may need to inspect records to decide whether an inquiry is warranted; Section 66 independently provides supervisory and inspection powers.

The construction contract, after the bid had been awarded, did not disclose a commercial confidence or trade secret affecting competitive position, and the meeting minutes and contract were not personal information warranting refusal to this requester, who was a Bank member.

The Court distinguished a request by an unrelated third party, whose claim could require separate consideration.

It dismissed the appeals, directed the Joint Registrar to call for the two documents and provide them to the fourth respondent within two weeks, and rejected any pending applications.