- (1.) AFFIDAVIT of service filed today be kept on record. Despite service, none appears on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 4.
(2.) IN this writ petition, the Consumer Cooperative Stores Limited, a society registered under the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Cooperative Societies Regulations, 1973 and its Secretary, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, have challenged the order dated 17.7.2008 passed by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Andaman and Nicobar Administration, the first appellate authority and the order dated 29.4.2010 passed in second appeal by the Information Commissioner, primarily on the ground that the petitioner No. 1, the society, being a private body is not amenable to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Mr.Bahadur, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners, supporting the statements in the writ petition has submitted that provision has been made in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands Cooperative Regulations 1973 for settlement of a dispute. Accordingly Bye-laws have been framed by the petitioner No.1. Referring to the notification dated 17.10.2005 whereby the Administration had appointed Public Information Officers, Assistant Public Information Officers and Appellate Authorities in its respective departments under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it has been submitted that it applies to the Cooperative department and not to a co-operative society. However, in the instant case, the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 without appreciating the scope of the Regulations and the Bye-laws have come to the finding that the petitioner No. 1 is a public authority. Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others, (2002)5 SCC 111 and on an unreported decision of the Karnataka High Court in Writ Petition No. 16901/2006 (GM-RES), Dattaprasad Cooperative Housing Society Limited v. Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Government of Karnataka, it has been submitted that before passing the orders impugned, the appellate authorities the respondents, should have come to a specific finding with reasons that the petitioner not comes within the meaning of public authority under Section 2(h) of the Act. Moreover since the petitioners were dented an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order dated 29.4.2010 passed by the respondent No. 1, the second appellate authority, is not sustainable.
(3.) MR . Tabraiz, learned Advocate appearing on behalf the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in support of the impugned orders submits that under the Regulations, the Registrar has a control over the co-operative societies. Moreover, the petitioners are not entitled to the reliefs as prayed for, as before the appellate authorities reliance was placed, on Section B(1)(d) of the Act claiming exemption, whereas in the writ petition statement is that the society cannot be treated to be a public authority as it does not get any financial assistance from the Government.;