{"id":131453,"date":"2009-08-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-08-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009"},"modified":"2014-12-20T13:16:34","modified_gmt":"2014-12-20T07:46:34","slug":"thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009","title":{"rendered":"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court<\/div>\n
Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM\n\nWA.No. 1417 of 2009()\n\n\n1. THALAPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE\n                      ...  Petitioner\n\n                        Vs\n\n\n\n1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS\n                       ...       Respondent\n\n2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS\n\n3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n4. STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER,\n\n5. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE\n\n6. K.T.THOMAS, KOOTTUNKAL HOUSE,\n\n                For Petitioner  :SRI.P.V.BABY\n\n                For Respondent  :SRI.M.AJAY, SC, STATE INFORMATION COMMN\n\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR\nThe Hon'ble MR. Justice C.T.RAVIKUMAR\n\n Dated :28\/08\/2009\n\n O R D E R\n      K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ.\n                  ------------------------------\n             W.A.Nos.1417,1338, 1359, 1398, 1418\n               1419, 1420,1421, 1424, 1425, 1426,\n               1427, 1428,1429, 1437, 1523, 1524,\n               1526, 1527,1528, 1530, 1531, 1532,\n          1534 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No.20644 of 2009\n                  ------------------------------\n\n               Dated this, the 28th day of August, 2009\n\n\n                            JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Balakrishnan Nair, J.\n<\/p>\n
            The main point that arises for decision in these<\/p>\n
appeals is whether the Co-operative Societies, which are the<\/p>\n
appellants in these cases, are ‘public authorities’, as defined<\/p>\n
under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005<\/p>\n
(Central Act 22 of 2005). Since the very same point arises in<\/p>\n
all these appeals, they are heard together and disposed of by<\/p>\n
this common judgment.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/2009:\n<\/p>\n
            2. This appeal is treated as the main case for the<\/p>\n
purpose of referring to the exhibits. The appellant was the writ<\/p>\n
petitioner. It was a service co-operative bank registered under<\/p>\n
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act.     The brief facts of the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                              – 2 –\n<\/p>\n
case are the following:\n<\/p>\n
           The Registrar of Co-operative Societies issued<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 Circular No.23 of 2006 dated 1.6.2006 to all<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies like the appellant, stating that all<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies under the control of Registrar of<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies are public authorities under the Right<\/p>\n
to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the<\/p>\n
R.T.I. Act”).     By the aforesaid circular,   all Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies were alerted of their liability to furnish information<\/p>\n
to all applicants as provided under the R.T.I. Act.         The<\/p>\n
information officers of the Co-operative Department were<\/p>\n
informed that if any application is received by them, seeking<\/p>\n
information    regarding   any   Co-operative    Society,  such<\/p>\n
application should be forwarded to the said Co-operative<\/p>\n
Society for providing information to the applicant. According<\/p>\n
to the appellant bank, the basic premise of the Registrar that<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies under his control are public authorities<\/p>\n
under the R.T.I. Act is fallacious. The Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
registered under the Co-operative Societies Act do not<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 3 –\n<\/p>\n
answer the definition of public authority under Section 2 (h)<\/p>\n
of the R.T.I. Act.       So, the aforementioned Circular was<\/p>\n
issued without the authority of law. While so, the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent herein, who is a member of the appellant bank,<\/p>\n
submitted Ext.P2 application before the Assistant Registrar<\/p>\n
(General),    Meenachil   Taluk,  Pala,    requesting   certain<\/p>\n
information, mentioned therein. The 4th respondent Assistant<\/p>\n
Registrar, who is the Public Information Officer under the<\/p>\n
Co-operative Department, forwarded Ext.P2 application to the<\/p>\n
appellant Society to furnish the details sought for by the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent, as per Ext.P3 letter dated 5.4.2006.        It was<\/p>\n
followed by Ext.P4 communication issued by the said officer,<\/p>\n
as per which the appellant was advised to appoint a public<\/p>\n
information officer to handle the petition of the 6th<\/p>\n
respondent.     In the above background, the writ petition was<\/p>\n
filed, challenging Exts.P1 and P4 and also seeking a<\/p>\n
declaration that the appellant Society is not a public authority<\/p>\n
as defined under Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act. The Society<\/p>\n
pointed out that any member of it can get any information<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                              – 4 –\n<\/p>\n
concerning it under Section 103 of the Kerala Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act”).<\/p>\n
           3. On behalf of the third respondent, Registrar of<\/p>\n
Co-operative     Societies, Thiruvananthapuram, a counter<\/p>\n
affidavit was filed in the writ petition. It was submitted that<\/p>\n
the Government contributed Rs.5,000\/- towards the share<\/p>\n
capital of the appellant Society in 1964 and thereafter<\/p>\n
Rs.1,00,000\/- in 1988. The said amount was fully repaid to<\/p>\n
the State by the Society only on 23.3.2006. The appellant<\/p>\n
Society was registered in 1956. The Society improved its<\/p>\n
business and reached the present position mainly utilising<\/p>\n
the share capital subscribed by the State Government. The<\/p>\n
contention that any member of the Society can get<\/p>\n
information under Section 103 of the Act is untenable. It is<\/p>\n
only an enabling provision. The provisions of Section 103 (2)<\/p>\n
do not enable a member to get all the required information.<\/p>\n
According to the said respondent, the appellant comes under<\/p>\n
the definition of public authority, as contained in Section 2<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                              – 5 –\n<\/p>\n
(h) of the R.T.I. Act.      It is further pointed out that the<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies are directly supervised and controlled<\/p>\n
by the officers of the Co-operative Department invoking the<\/p>\n
powers under Sections 63, 65 and 66 of the Act.             The<\/p>\n
Societies are bound to follow the directions of the Registrar,<\/p>\n
issued under Section 66A of the Act. Therefore, the Societies<\/p>\n
are bound to give the information as directed in Ext.P4, it is<\/p>\n
submitted. The second respondent, referring to the various<\/p>\n
provisions of the Act, also asserted that the appellant Society<\/p>\n
is a public authority and therefore, liable to furnish any<\/p>\n
information sought by any citizen, whether he is a member of<\/p>\n
the Society or not. The 4th respondent, State Information<\/p>\n
Commission, filed a counter affidavit, opposing the prayers in<\/p>\n
the writ petition.     According to the 4th respondent, every<\/p>\n
Co-operative Society       is substantially financed directly or<\/p>\n
indirectly by the State. All Societies are controlled by the<\/p>\n
Registrar.          According to the said respondent, the<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies are constituted by the provisions of<\/p>\n
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Even if there is no<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                              – 6 –\n<\/p>\n
direct funding by the State, still the Society cannot claim<\/p>\n
exemption from the provisions of the R.T.I. Act, it was<\/p>\n
submitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           4. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both<\/p>\n
sides, held as follows: (1) Even if a Co-operative Society is a<\/p>\n
private body, any person who desires to obtain any<\/p>\n
information in relation to the Society is entitled to move the<\/p>\n
competent public information officer of the Co-operative<\/p>\n
Department and get such information in relation to any<\/p>\n
Society.    The said officer can access such information<\/p>\n
available with the Society.      (2) The Societies are public<\/p>\n
authorities, as defined under Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act.<\/p>\n
The said finding was arrived at based on the conclusion that<\/p>\n
the Societies are substantially financed by the State<\/p>\n
Government. Relying on the above findings, the writ petition<\/p>\n
was dismissed along with a batch of similar writ petitions.<\/p>\n
Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Single<\/p>\n
Judge, this writ appeal is filed.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 7 –\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           5. We heard the learned counsel on both sides.<\/p>\n
The learned counsel for the appellants took us through the<\/p>\n
various provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act<\/p>\n
and submitted that though the Registrar has control over the<\/p>\n
functioning of the Co-operative Societies, the Government<\/p>\n
have no such control.     Going by the said provisions, the<\/p>\n
Government have only very limited role to play in the<\/p>\n
functioning of the Co-operative Societies registered under the<\/p>\n
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Society is registered<\/p>\n
under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, but, it is not an<\/p>\n
entity created by the said Act.     The Society is functioning<\/p>\n
independently according to the provisions of the Act, Rules<\/p>\n
and its bye-laws. Subject to the provisions of the Act, Rules<\/p>\n
and bye-laws, the general body     is the supreme authority of<\/p>\n
a Co-operative Society. Though, in early days of the<\/p>\n
Societies, there was Government share participation in many<\/p>\n
Societies, at present, there is share participation only in very<\/p>\n
few Societies. In the case of primary credit societies, like the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 8 –\n<\/p>\n
appellant, there is no investment of the Government in the<\/p>\n
form of Share Capital. They took us through the definition of<\/p>\n
“public authority”, contained in Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act<\/p>\n
and analysing each clause, told us that, if only the State<\/p>\n
Government finances substantially, directly or indirectly for<\/p>\n
the functioning of the Society, it will answer the definition of<\/p>\n
“public authority”. The facts concerning the Society would<\/p>\n
clearly demonstrate that the Government are not financing<\/p>\n
the Society directly or indirectly now.  So, the finding of the<\/p>\n
learned Single Judge that the appellant Society is a public<\/p>\n
authority is untenable and is liable to be reversed, it is<\/p>\n
submitted.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           6.     The State Information Commission submitted<\/p>\n
that all Co-operative Societies are controlled         by the<\/p>\n
Co-operative Department. The Co-operative Department is<\/p>\n
fully funded by the State Government.           So, the State<\/p>\n
Government is indirectly controlling the appellant Society. It<\/p>\n
is stated that about Rs.400 crores were spent last year by<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 9 –\n<\/p>\n
the Government for the Co-operative Department to control<\/p>\n
and administer the Co-operative Societies.     So, by indirect<\/p>\n
funding, the primary societies are controlled by the State. It<\/p>\n
is also pointed out that if any dispute arises as to whether a<\/p>\n
Society\/bank is a public authority or not, there are statutory<\/p>\n
forums under the Act to adjudicate that dispute. The learned<\/p>\n
Special Government Pleader also endorsed the above views<\/p>\n
and supported the judgment under appeal.<\/p>\n
           7. We went through the pleadings and materials<\/p>\n
on record, the contentions of the parties and also the<\/p>\n
judgment of the learned Single Judge.        The definition of<\/p>\n
“information” contained in Section 2(f) includes information<\/p>\n
relating to any private body, which can be accessed by a<\/p>\n
public authority under any other law for the time being in<\/p>\n
force.   The Registrar of Co-operative Societies and the<\/p>\n
officers exercising the powers of the Registrar have deep,<\/p>\n
pervasive      and effective control over the Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies. The Registrar or any other officer exercising the<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                               – 10 –\n<\/p>\n
powers of the Registrar, can access any information from any<\/p>\n
Co-operative Society. Therefore, we agree with the findings<\/p>\n
of the learned Single Judge that even if a Co-operative<\/p>\n
Society is a private body, information can be accessed by the<\/p>\n
Information Officer concerned and furnish the same to any<\/p>\n
person.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
            8.     The second point to be considered is the<\/p>\n
correctness of the decision of the learned Single Judge that<\/p>\n
Co-operative Society is a public authority under the Act.<\/p>\n
‘Public Authority’ is defined as follows:<\/p>\n
        “(h) ‘public authority’   means any authority or<\/p>\n
        body or institution of self government established<\/p>\n
        or constituted –<\/p>\n
           (a) by or under the Constitution;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
           (b) by any other law made by Parliament;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
            (c) by      any other law made by State\n                   Legislature;\n\n<\/pre>\n
            (d) by notification issued or order made by
\n                   the appropriate Government,<\/p>\n
        and includes any –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                 (i)   body     owned,     controlled   or\n                       substantially financed;\n\nW.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n                             - 11 -\n\n                  (ii) non-Government        organisation\n                      substantially financed,\n\n<\/pre>\n
       directly or indirectly by funds provided by the<\/p>\n
       appropriate Government.”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
It is common ground that        the dispute relates to whether<\/p>\n
Co-operative Society comes under sub-clauses (i) and (ii)<\/p>\n
after clause (d) of sub-section (h) of Section 2 of the R.T.I.<\/p>\n
Act.  No one has a case that Co-operative Society is owned<\/p>\n
by the State Government, or controlled by the State<\/p>\n
Government       or   substantially    financed  by    the State<\/p>\n
Government.       The only contention canvassed before us is<\/p>\n
that, it is a non-government organisation substantially<\/p>\n
financed indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate<\/p>\n
Government.\n<\/p>\n
           9.     Before considering the above point, we will<\/p>\n
refer briefly to the scheme of the Act.             The right to<\/p>\n
information      is considered as a facet of the right to free<\/p>\n
speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of<\/p>\n
the Constitution of India. The said constitutional right being<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                              – 12 –\n<\/p>\n
a fundamental right could be enforced by invoking the writ<\/p>\n
jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the High Courts under<\/p>\n
Articles 32 and 226 respectively.            But, the Right to<\/p>\n
Information     Act  provides     an   efficacious   remedy  for<\/p>\n
enforcement of the right to information.        The objects and<\/p>\n
reasons for introducing the Act read as follows:<\/p>\n
             “In order to ensure greater and more<\/p>\n
       effective access to information, the Government<\/p>\n
       resolved that the Freedom of Information Act,<\/p>\n
       2002 enacted by the Parliament needs to be made<\/p>\n
       more progressive, participatory and meaningful.<\/p>\n
       The National Advisory Council deliberated on the<\/p>\n
       issue and suggested certain important changes to<\/p>\n
       be incorporated in the existing Act to ensure<\/p>\n
       smoother and greater access to information. The<\/p>\n
       Government examined the suggestions made by<\/p>\n
       the National Advisory Council and others and<\/p>\n
       decided to make a number of changes in the law.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
             The important changes proposed to be<\/p>\n
       incorporated, inter alia, include establishment of<\/p>\n
       appellate machinery with investigating powers to<\/p>\n
       review decisions of the Public Information Officers;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
       penal provisions for failure to provide information<\/p>\n
       as per law; provision to ensure maximum<\/p>\n
       disclosure and minimum exemptions, consistent<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                                – 13 –\n<\/p>\n
       with the constitutional provisions, and effective<\/p>\n
       mechanism      for    access  to  information   and<\/p>\n
       disclosure by authorities, etc.        In view of<\/p>\n
       significant changes proposed in the existing Act,<\/p>\n
       the Government also decides to repeal the<\/p>\n
       Freedom of Information Act, 2002. The proposed<\/p>\n
       legislation will provide an effective framework for<\/p>\n
       effectuating the right of information recognised<\/p>\n
       under Article 19 of the Constitution of India.”.<\/p>\n
The preamble of the Act will throw much light on the laudable<\/p>\n
object behind giving shape to the Act. The preamble reads<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                  “An Act to provide for setting out the<\/p>\n
          practical regime of right to information for<\/p>\n
          citizens to secure access to information under<\/p>\n
          the control of public authorities, in order to<\/p>\n
          promote transparency and accountability in<\/p>\n
          the working of every public authority, the<\/p>\n
          constitution      of   a  Central    Information<\/p>\n
          Commission          and    State     Information<\/p>\n
          Commissions and for matters connected<\/p>\n
          therewith or incidental thereto.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  WHEREAS the Constitution of India has<\/p>\n
          established a democratic Republic;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  AND WHEREAS democracy requires an<\/p>\n
          informed      citizenry  and  transparency    of<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                               – 14 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          information which are vital to its functioning<\/p>\n
          and also to contain corruption and to hold<\/p>\n
          Governments      and     their   instrumentalities<\/p>\n
          accountable to the governed;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  AND WHEREAS revelation of information<\/p>\n
          in actual practice is likely to conflict with other<\/p>\n
          public interests including efficient operations<\/p>\n
          of the Governments, optimum use of limited<\/p>\n
          fiscal resources and the preservation of<\/p>\n
          confidentiality of sensitive information;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  AND WHEREAS it is necessary to<\/p>\n
          harmonise these conflicting interests while<\/p>\n
          preserving the paramountcy of the democratic<\/p>\n
          ideal;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                  NOW, THEREFORE, it is expedient to<\/p>\n
          provide for furnishing certain information to<\/p>\n
          citizens who desire to have it.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                  Be it enacted by Parliament in the<\/p>\n
          Fifty-Sixth Year of the Republic of India as<\/p>\n
          follows:-“.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 2(a) of the R.T.I. Act defines appropriate Government<\/p>\n
as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                 “(a) ‘appropriate Government’       means in<\/p>\n
         relation      to  a   public   authority    which   is<\/p>\n
         established, constituted, owned, controlled or<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                – 15 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
         substantially financed by funds provided directly<\/p>\n
         or indirectly —\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (i) by the Central Government or the Union
\n                      territory administration, the Central
\n                      Government;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
               (ii) by the State Government, the State
\n                      Government;”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 2(f) defines information which reads as follows:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
         “(f).    ‘information’ means any material in any<\/p>\n
         form, including records, documents, memos,<\/p>\n
         e-mails,     opinions,   advices,  press   releases,<\/p>\n
         circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports,<\/p>\n
         papers, samples, models, data material held in<\/p>\n
         any electronic form and information relating to<\/p>\n
         any private body which can be accessed by a<\/p>\n
         public authority under any other law for the time<\/p>\n
         being in force;”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
We have already quoted ‘public authority’, defined under<\/p>\n
Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act. The right to information is<\/p>\n
defined under Section 2(j) as follows:<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                “(j) ‘right to information’ means the right to<\/p>\n
         information accessible under this Act which is held<\/p>\n
         by or under the control of any public authority and<\/p>\n
         includes the right to –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (i) inspection of work, documents, records;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                – 16 –\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (ii) taking notes, extracts, or certified copies<\/p>\n
          of documents or records;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                (iii) taking certified samples of materials;<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
                (iv) obtaining information in the form of<\/p>\n
          diskettes, floppies, tapes, video casettes or in any<\/p>\n
          other electronic mode or through printouts where<\/p>\n
          such information is stored in a computer or in any<\/p>\n
          other device;”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n<\/blockquote>\n
Section 3 declares that, “subject to the provisions of this Act,<\/p>\n
all citizens shall have the right to information”.       Section 5 of<\/p>\n
the R.T.I. Act mandates that within 100 days of the<\/p>\n
enforcement of the Act, all public authorities shall appoint<\/p>\n
Information Officers at the appropriate level.          Section 6(2)<\/p>\n
specifically says that, “An applicant making request for<\/p>\n
information shall not be required to give any reason for<\/p>\n
requesting the information or any other personal details<\/p>\n
except those that may be necessary for contacting him.”.<\/p>\n
Section 7 provides that any request made for any information<\/p>\n
shall be disposed of by the Information Officer concerned<\/p>\n
within the time limits provided therein. Section 8 deals with<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                              – 17 –\n<\/p>\n
exemption from disclosing information. Section 18 deals with<\/p>\n
powers and functions of the Information Commission and<\/p>\n
Section 19 deals with the appellate remedy available to the<\/p>\n
persons aggrieved.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
           10.      For interpretation of the definition of public<\/p>\n
authority in Section 2(h), the definition of          appropriate<\/p>\n
Government in Section 2(a) can be used as a key.          Section<\/p>\n
2(a) makes it clear that if a public authority is established,<\/p>\n
constituted, owned, controlled or substantially financed by<\/p>\n
the funds provided directly or indirectly         by the State<\/p>\n
Government, it shall be the appropriate Government in<\/p>\n
relation to that public authority. Keeping in mind        Section<\/p>\n
2(a) of the R.T.I Act, when the definition of public authority is<\/p>\n
scrutinised, we find that it has broadly two parts. The first<\/p>\n
part deals with any authority\/body\/institution of Self<\/p>\n
Government       established   or   constituted  by    the  State<\/p>\n
Government.         The establishment or constitution can be<\/p>\n
under the Constitution, under an Act of Parliament, under an<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                            – 18 –\n<\/p>\n
Act of the State Legislature, or by a notification or order<\/p>\n
issued or made by the State Government. The second part<\/p>\n
clarifies that a body owned or controlled or substantially<\/p>\n
financed by the funds provided by the State Government<\/p>\n
directly or indirectly or     non-government organisations<\/p>\n
substantially financed directly or indirectly will come under<\/p>\n
the definition of public authority. A Co-operative Society, if<\/p>\n
at all, may come only under the second part of the definition,<\/p>\n
i.e. a non-governmental organization substantially financed<\/p>\n
directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate<\/p>\n
Government. It is manifest that the appellant Society is a<\/p>\n
non-governmental organisation.      But, still it will become a<\/p>\n
public authority, if it is substantially financed directly or<\/p>\n
indirectly by the funds provided by the State Government.<\/p>\n
Whether the appellant is substantially financed directly or<\/p>\n
indirectly by the funds provided by the State Government is<\/p>\n
essentially a disputed question of fact. The appellant asserts,<\/p>\n
at present, there is no funding, directly or indirectly by the<\/p>\n
State Government. The case of the State was also that earlier<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 19 –\n<\/p>\n
there was share capital participation and by March 2006, the<\/p>\n
entire share capital subscribed by the State Government has<\/p>\n
been repaid.        The Society  in the beginning might have<\/p>\n
depended on the State Government. Later, it may become<\/p>\n
financially stable and could stand on its own legs without any<\/p>\n
State assistance. It might have repaid the amount provided<\/p>\n
by the State Government also.         Similarly, a Society which<\/p>\n
is financially stable may fall into troubled waters and it may<\/p>\n
become dependant substantially on Government funds.<\/p>\n
Similarly, in some Co-operative Societies like Industrial<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies organised by the members of the<\/p>\n
Scheduled Castes\/Scheduled Tribes, there is substantial help<\/p>\n
by the State Government         in the form of Share Capital,<\/p>\n
assistance for purchasing land,      constructing building, etc.<\/p>\n
So, the measure of involvement of the Government, and the<\/p>\n
financial assistance will depend upon the facts of each case.<\/p>\n
There cannot be any general decision on that point.<\/p>\n
            11.     The various provisions of the Co-operative<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                            – 20 –\n<\/p>\n
Societies Act have been mentioned before us by the<\/p>\n
appellants, which apparently deal with the involvement of the<\/p>\n
State Government in the functions of the Societies.       The<\/p>\n
State aid to Co-operative Societies is contained in Chapter VI<\/p>\n
of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. Section 42 enables<\/p>\n
the State Government to directly subscribe to the share<\/p>\n
capital of     a Society.   Section 43 empowers the State<\/p>\n
Government to provide monies to a Society for purchase of<\/p>\n
shares of other Societies.         Section 44 provides for<\/p>\n
establishment of Principal State Partnership Fund by Apex<\/p>\n
Societies   with monies provided by the State Government<\/p>\n
under Section 43.        Similarly, there is a provision for<\/p>\n
Subsidiary State     Partnership Fund under Section 45 by a<\/p>\n
Central Society, which has been provided fund by the Apex<\/p>\n
Society from the Principal State Partnership Fund. Section<\/p>\n
52 deals with the agreements by the State Government and<\/p>\n
Apex Societies, subject to which it may provide funds under<\/p>\n
Section 43 and 44.        Regarding the management of the<\/p>\n
Societies, the State Government has no role.     The power in<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                            – 21 –\n<\/p>\n
this regard is vested with the Registrar of Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies. Of course, the Government have the powers to<\/p>\n
hear appeals and revisions under Section 83 and 87 of the<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies Act. Analysing the above provisions<\/p>\n
regarding the control of the Government, a Division Bench of<\/p>\n
this Court in Trivandrum District Co-operative Bank v.<\/p>\n
State of Kerala,<\/a> 1992 (1) KLT 381, has held that, only the<\/p>\n
Registrar has the power to issue directions to Co-operative<\/p>\n
Societies. Going by the provisions of the Act, as held by us<\/p>\n
earlier,     the    Society can   only   be    treated  as   a<\/p>\n
non-governmental organisation for the purpose of definition<\/p>\n
of public authority.      In other words, by virtue of the<\/p>\n
provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the<\/p>\n
control of the Registrar, the Society cannot be held as a<\/p>\n
public authority for the purpose of the R.T.I. Act. The control<\/p>\n
of the Registrar and the control of the State Government are<\/p>\n
distinct and different.      The words ‘State Government’<\/p>\n
mentioned in Section 2(a) of the R.T.I. Act           defining<\/p>\n
appropriate Government, are not defined under the Act. So,<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 22 –\n<\/p>\n
this being a Central Act, the General Clauses Act, 1897 would<\/p>\n
apply. Going by Section 3(60) of the General Clauses Act,<\/p>\n
State Government means the Governor of the State. There is<\/p>\n
no control of the Governor in the Constitutional sense, i.e. no<\/p>\n
control by the State Government on the affairs of the<\/p>\n
Society.    Therefore, if only the Society is substantially<\/p>\n
financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the<\/p>\n
State Government, it can be treated as a public authority.<\/p>\n
But,  the    learned  counsel    for  the  State   Information<\/p>\n
Commission contended that a Co-operative Society is a body<\/p>\n
controlled directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the<\/p>\n
appropriate Government.      The said argument is founded on<\/p>\n
the fact that Co-operative Department is funded by the State<\/p>\n
Government, which in turn is controlling the Societies. So,<\/p>\n
the State is indirectly controlling the Societies by its funds.<\/p>\n
We think that the said interpretation is untenable.      When<\/p>\n
Section 2(a) and Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act are read<\/p>\n
together, it is clear that a body controlled by the State<\/p>\n
Government will be a public authority.            The words<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                            – 23 –\n<\/p>\n
“substantially financed” alone are qualified by the words<\/p>\n
“directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the State<\/p>\n
Government”, and not the other words, “the body owned or<\/p>\n
controlled”.\n<\/p>\n
           12. Going by Ext.P1, we feel that it contains only<\/p>\n
an opinion of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The<\/p>\n
Registrar has taken the view that the Co-operative Society is<\/p>\n
established by the Act of the State Legislature.      The said<\/p>\n
assumption is untenable. So, it is declared that obedience to<\/p>\n
Ext.P1 is optional and if any Society does not obey Ext.P1, no<\/p>\n
action under Section 32 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies<\/p>\n
Act, can be taken against it. As held by us earlier, there are<\/p>\n
no sufficient materials before us to decide whether each of<\/p>\n
the Societies which has approached this Court is a public<\/p>\n
authority or not for the purpose of R.T.I. Act. The Society<\/p>\n
concerned can, on the basis of the facts and materials<\/p>\n
concerning it, take a decision and act accordingly. If it feels<\/p>\n
that it is a public authority, it can appoint an Information<\/p>\n
Officer under the Act and furnish information. If it thinks that<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                             – 24 –\n<\/p>\n
it is not a public authority, it can refuse to act as directed in<\/p>\n
Ext.P1.     When the matter reaches before the competent<\/p>\n
authority, under the R.T.I. Act, the said forum shall decide<\/p>\n
first, whether the Society concerned is a public authority as<\/p>\n
defined under Section 2(h) of the R.T.I. Act, i.e. a factual<\/p>\n
finding has to be made as to           whether the Society is<\/p>\n
substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds<\/p>\n
provided by the State Government. If it is found that the<\/p>\n
Society is so financed, the competent authority can take<\/p>\n
appropriate action against the Co-operative Society including<\/p>\n
coercive actions,     for not acting in accordance with the<\/p>\n
provisions of the R.T.I. Act. If the decision is in favour of the<\/p>\n
Society, the person aggrieved can carry the matter before<\/p>\n
higher forums.      Thus, we are of the view that whether a<\/p>\n
Society is a public authority, is a disputed question of fact,<\/p>\n
which has to be resolved by the authorities under the R.T.I.<\/p>\n
Act. There cannot be any general decision on that point by<\/p>\n
this Court.\n<\/p>\n
W.A.No.1417\/09 etc .\n<\/p>\n
                           – 25 –\n<\/p>\n
           13. In the result, the Writ Appeal is allowed in<\/p>\n
part.   The finding in    the judgment under appeal that<\/p>\n
Co-operative Societies are public authorities under Section 2<\/p>\n
(h) of the R.T.I. Act is vacated. The competent authority<\/p>\n
under the Act shall take a decision on the point whether a<\/p>\n
Society is a public authority,when occasion arises for the<\/p>\n
same, uninfluenced by any observations contained in the<\/p>\n
judgment under appeal.\n<\/p>\n
W.A. Nos.1338, 1359, 1398, 1418, 1419, 1420, 1421,1424, 1425,<\/p>\n
1426, 1427, 1428, 1429, 1437, 1523, 1524, 1526, 1527, 1528,<\/p>\n
1530, 1531, 1532, 1534 of 2009 and W.P.(C) No. 20644 of 2009<\/p>\n
           In terms of the judgment in W.A. No.1417 of<\/p>\n
2009, all these appeals\/writ petition are disposed of.<\/p>\n
                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                   K. Balakrishnan Nair,
\n                                            Judge.\n<\/p>\n
                                             Sd\/-\n<\/p>\n
                                      C.T. Ravikumar,
\n                                            Judge.\n<\/p>\n
DK.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Kerala High Court Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM WA.No. 1417 of 2009() 1. THALAPALAM SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE … Petitioner Vs 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS … Respondent 2. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS 3. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE 4. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-131453","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-kerala-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-12-20T07:46:34+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-20T07:46:34+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\"},\"wordCount\":4156,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Kerala High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\",\"name\":\"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-12-20T07:46:34+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-12-20T07:46:34+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009","datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-20T07:46:34+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009"},"wordCount":4156,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Kerala High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009","name":"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-08-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-12-20T07:46:34+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/thalapalam-service-co-operative-vs-union-of-india-on-28-august-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Thalapalam Service Co-Operative vs Union Of India on 28 August, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131453","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=131453"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/131453\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=131453"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=131453"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=131453"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}