Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Goa State Co-operative Milk Producer's Union Ltd., a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, challenged an order dated 11/02/2011 passed by the Goa State Information Commission (respondent no.1) in Appeal No.308/2008. The Commission had held the petitioner to be a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and directed it to furnish information sought by respondent no.2, Shri Kashinath Shetye, vide his application dated 13/10/2008. The petitioner contended that it was not a public authority as it was not substantially financed by the government; its funds came from its own activities, including sale of milk and milk products, and any government grants or subsidies were minimal. The respondent no.2 argued that the society was a public authority because it was a co-operative society and received government grants. The court analyzed the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h), particularly clause (d)(i) which includes bodies owned, controlled, or substantially financed by the government. The court noted that the petitioner's bye-laws specified its sources of funds, which were primarily from its own operations. The court found that the respondent no.2 had not placed any material to show that the petitioner was substantially financed by the government. The court held that the mere fact that the petitioner is a co-operative society does not make it a public authority; the burden of proof lies on the applicant to establish substantial government financing. Since the respondent no.2 failed to discharge this burden, the court quashed the impugned order of the Information Commission and allowed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Right to Information - Public Authority - Definition under Section 2(h) of RTI Act, 2005 - Co-operative Society - The issue was whether a co-operative milk producers' union registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, is a 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. The court held that the society is not a public authority as it is not substantially financed by the government; the mere fact that it is a co-operative society does not bring it within the definition. The burden of proving substantial government financing lies on the applicant seeking information. (Paras 1-10) B) Right to Information - Substantial Financing - Interpretation - Section 2(h)(d)(i) of RTI Act, 2005 - The court examined whether the society receives 'substantial financing' from the government. It found that the society's funds are generated from its own activities, and any government grants or subsidies are not substantial enough to make it a public authority. The court emphasized that 'substantial' means a significant portion of the entity's total funding. (Paras 5-9) C) Right to Information - Burden of Proof - Applicant to Establish Public Authority Status - The court held that the burden is on the applicant (respondent no.2) to show that the society is a public authority under Section 2(h). The applicant failed to provide evidence of substantial government financing. (Paras 6-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960, which is not substantially financed by the government, falls within the definition of 'public authority' under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, and is thus obliged to furnish information under the Act.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned order dated 11/02/2011 passed by the Goa State Information Commission in Appeal No.308/2008.
Law Points
- Co-operative society not a public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act unless substantially financed by government
- burden of proof on applicant to show substantial financing
- definition of public authority under Section 2(h) of RTI Act
- 2005
