Madras High Court
P.Jithibasu vs The Commissioner on 22 April, 2026
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 29.01.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 22.04.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
WP No. 40146 of 2025
P.Jothibasu
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
1.The Commissioner,
State Information Commission,
No.19, Government Farm House,
Chennai-600 035.
2.The General Manager (Sales)-Cum-Appellate
Authority,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation
Limited (TANFED)
No.91, St. Marys’ Road,
Chennai-600 018.
3.The Deputy Registrar/Secretary-Cum-Public
Information Officer,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing Federation
Limited (TANFED)
No.91, St. Marys’ Road,
Chennai-600 018.
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:Writ Petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India to issue writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the
impugned order passed by the 1st respondent in SA-12510-A-2023 dated
__________
Page1 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
03.10.2025 and quash the same as illegal and consequently direct the 3 rd
respondent to provide the information sought by the petitioner in his petition
dated 02.05.2023 under the Right to Information Act, 2005.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.M.Purushothaman
For Respondent(s): Mr.C.Vigneswaran For R1
Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan
Special Government Pleader
For R2 & R3
Amicus Curiae: Mr.M.S.Palanisamy
ORDER
The petitioner impugns the order of the 1st respondent, wherein the 1st
respondent came to a conclusion that the activities of the Tamil Nadu
Co-Operative Marketing Federation Limited [hereinafter referred to as
‘TANFED’] do not constitute “public work” at large, and it is not a body or an
institution that constitutes a “public authority” within the Right to Information
Act, 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘RTI Act’] and sufficient materials had not
been produced before it to establish the degree of control that the State of Tamil
Nadu has over TANFED. Consequently, the appeal filed by the writ petitioner
invoking Section 19(3) of the RTI Act came to be dismissed.
2. The petitioner filed an application under Section 6 of the RTI Act on
02.05.2023 seeking certain information from the 3 rd respondent. The
__________
Page2 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
information that the petitioner sought are as follows:
“(1) I request to give me the details of varieties of fertilizers
procured by the Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation.
(2) I request you to provide me a copy of the list of
organizations from which Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation is
procuring fertilizers in a proper format.
(3) I request you to provide me the details as to which
organizations/ companies / suppliers the Organic Manure, Bio-
stimulant, Plant Growth Regulator, Neem Cake Bio Fertilizer and
Nutrient fertilizers were procured by the Tamil Nadu TANFED
Corporation from April 2021.
(4) Give me details of the method of tender guidelines for
procurement of Organic Manure, Bio-stimulant, Plant Growth
Regulator, Neem Cake Bio Fertilizer and Nutrient fertilizers
whether fixed contract (or) empanelment tender or in which way
were called for.
(5) In case procurement is to be done in empanelment
method then give details of the organizations / companies which
were approved for empanelment from April 2021 to April 2023.
(6) Are there any fertilizer not covered by the FCO 1985 are
procured by Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation and supplied to
__________
Page3 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
PACCS. What are the fertilizers procured that does not come
under the FCO, 1985 regulations. Give details of the name,
variety, brand and name of the organization with copies of the
same.
(7) How are the prices compared with market price of the
fertilizers supplied by such organizations when being granted
approval by your Tamil Nadu TANFED Corporation through
empanelment while procuring fertilizers from private companies.
(8) Give copies of information pertaining to whether your
organization consults with the Agriculture Department while fixing
the price for procurement with any price.
(9) Whether the intermediate products like Organic Manure,
Bio-stimulant, Plant Growth Regulator, Neem Cake Bio Fertilizer
and Nutrient fertilizers are tested batch wise for the products
procured by your TANFED Corporation? In case, such quality
analysis is it being done in a lab certified under FCO 1985? If so,
give information with supportive documents for each
organization / supplier and details of the testing labs coming under
the Agriculture Department, Universities.
(10) Whether your TANFED Corporation while procuring
and supplying fertilizers to the PACCSS between April 2021 to
__________
Page4 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
April 2023, the certificates of private suppliers of Organic
Manure, Bio-stimulant, Plant Growth Regulator, Neem Cake Bio
Fertilizer and Nutrient fertilizers, manufacturing license submitted
by the private organizations of manufacturing certificate issued by
the Agriculture Department after obtaining test certificate from
State and Central Agricultural Universities (ICAR) such as
Agronomy Photo toxicity? Give copies of the details of the
Agronomy Photo toxicity submitted by various organizations.
(11) Give tabulation and details of copies of the suppliers of
plant growth regulator (bio stimulant) whether they are as per the
FCO 1985 regulations. In case fertilizers are coming under the
FCO 1985 regulations whether such manufacturing certificates
have been issued by the Agricultural Department give details with
copies of the same.”
3. This query was responded to by the 3 rd respondent, stating that in terms
of the judgment of this Court in The Public Information Officer vs. The
Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Others (W.A.Nos.2425
to 2428 and 2500 of 2013 dated 29.04.2015), reported in 2015 (4) CTC 105,
Cooperative Societies do not come within the purview of the RTI Act.
__________
Page5 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
4. Aggrieved by the same, the writ petitioner preferred an appeal to the 2nd
respondent on 25.05.2023. The 2nd respondent too, took a view similar as that of
the 3rd respondent. Hence, the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal invoking
Section 19(3) of the RTI Act. This appeal was presented on 11.07.2023. On
account of the pendency of cases before the 1 st respondent, the appeal had not
been taken up for disposal. Hence, the petitioner filed W.P.No.3975 of 2025
dated 06.02.2025 seeking a direction for disposal of this appeal. This Court, by
an order dated 06.02.2025, directed the appeal to be disposed of within a period
of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of that order.
5. Pursuant to this order, the 1 st respondent fixed the date of hearing as
02.04.2025. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit on that date, stating that
the RTI Act applies to entities like TANFED. Hence, he sought for the appeal to
be ordered and directions be issued to furnish the informations sought. On
02.04.2025, the Commissioner adjourned the hearing to 08.04.2025 for passing
order. According to the petitioner, the purpose of adjournment was to enable
TANFED to produce documents to show that there are no substantial
investments by the Government of Tamil Nadu, for it to be subjected to the
provisions of the RTI Act.
__________
Page6 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
6. On 08.04.2025, when the petitioner, accompanied by his counsel
appeared before the Commissioner, the matter was adjourned to 08.05.2025 as
there was no sitting. On 08.05.2025 too, there was no hearing. Yet, one typed
set of documents was received by the 1st respondent. The petitioner adds that the
1st respondent informed him, that the orders will be passed in the appeal and the
same will be sent to him by post.
7. The petitioner states that he was waiting till the end of June for
receiving communication. The wait was in vain. Instead, he was later informed
by the Registry of the 1st respondent that the matter has been posted for hearing
on 11.07.2025. The petitioner states that the TANFED had sent a letter seeking
adjournment till 15.07.2025. Feeling aggrieved that the matter was being
adjourned, without adhering to the aforesaid time bound directions of this
Court, the petitioner issued a contempt notice on 30.07.2025. He followed it up
by filing Contempt Petition No.3078 of 2025. Before the contempt petition
came up for hearing, the impugned order came to be passed on 03.10.2025,
dismissing the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner is before this
Court.
8. When the matter came up for admission, Ms.Sri Vadiv took notice on
behalf of Mr.C.Vigneshwaran, learned Standing Counsel for the 1 st respondent
__________
Page7 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
and Mrs.Geetha Thamaraiselvan, learned Special Government Pleader took
notice on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. Both counsel for the respondents
sought time to get instructions to make their submissions. Hence, the matter was
adjourned to enable them to get instructions.
9. The 3rd respondent has filed a counter affidavit. The facts leading to the
appeal has been admitted. The 3rd respondent sought dismissal of the writ
petition on the ground that TANFED is governed by the Tamil Nadu
Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 [hereinafter referred to as ‘TNCS Act’].
Hence, is entitled to the protection of the order in The President, Z.B. 70,
Madhanam Primary Agricultural Co-operative Society Vs. The State
Information Commissioner and others in W.P.No.14298 of 2022 dated
06.06.2024, which held that “Co-operative Societies” do not fall within the
meaning “Public Authority” under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
10. The counter affidavit states that the primary object of TANFED is to
promote, sustain and support all around economic development of Federation’s
Members in agricultural and allied sectors. It relies on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited and
Others vs. State of Kerala and Others [(2013) 16 SCC 82], which held that the
expression ‘controlled’ under Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the RTI Act must be
__________
Page8 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
substantial in nature and since the Government of Tamil Nadu has less than
51% of the share capital of TANFED, the judgment aforesaid applies to it.
Hence, it sought dismissal of the writ petition on the ground that it is not an
authority controlled by the State of Tamil Nadu.
11. It was further pleaded that while the Government, by order, sanctions
interest-free amount of Rs.120 Crores for the procurement of Chemicals to
TANFED, such funding is not unique to TANFED alone. The 3 rd respondent
relies upon the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Subhash Chandra Agrawal vs.
Indian Farmers Fertiliser Cooperative Limited (IFFCO) and Another in W.P.
(C).No.6751 of 2013 dated 02.03.2015. The Delhi High Court had held that
IFFCO is not a public authority merely because it is receiving subsidy from the
Central Government and declared IFFCO to not fall within the meaning of the
expression “public authority”. On these pleadings, the 3 rd respondent sought for
dismissal of the writ petition.
12. Mr.Vigneshwaran, placing reliance upon the judgment in
Thalappalam’s case (cited supra), urged that since the Supreme Court has held
that Co-operative Societies are not “public authority” within the meaning of the
RTI Act, this Court should apply the same judgment to the facts of the present
case and dismiss the writ petition.
__________
Page9 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
13. Considering the importance of the issue that was being presented, this
Court requested Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, a person well-versed in the field of the
Laws of Co-operative Societies, to assist the Court as Amicus Curiae.
Mr.M.S.Palanisamy stated that the judgment in Thalappalam’s case (cited
supra) arose under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, and that on
account of conflict between the view of two Division Benches of the Kerala
High Court, a Full Bench was constituted in The Mulloor Rural Co-operative
Society Limited, Represented by its Secretary vs. State of Kerala, Represented
by the Chief Secretary and Others [AIR 2012 Kerala 124].
14. After drawing this Court’s attention to the said judgment, the learned
Amicus Curiae pointed out that the issue before the Supreme Court in
Thalappalam’s case (cited supra) was whether a rural cooperative society, at
the primary level, is a “Public Authority” for it to be obliged to provide
information as sought for. It also revolved around the questions that had been
asked under the RTI Act and regarding the interpretation of the circular issued
by the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Kerala, dated 01.06.2006. Referring
to the TNCS Act, he pointed that the TANFED is an ‘Apex Body’. On the basis
of the said judgment and the tests evolved therein, this Court could come to a
conclusion that Thalappalam’s case might not be applicable to an Apex Body
__________
Page10 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
like TANFED. He left it is for this Court to decide if an Apex Co-operative
Society is entitled to the same treatment as a Primary Co-operative Society.
15. I have carefully considered the submissions from all sides. I have
gone through the records.
16. Before going into the application of the RTI Act to “co-operative
societies”, I feel it is necessary to analyze the constitution, managerial,
functional and organizational structure of TANFED. Thereafter, I will discuss
the applicable provisions of the TNCS Act, 1983 and the rules made thereunder
and find out the nature of the society, such as TANFED, and the extent of
governmental control over it.
17. TANFED is an Apex Co-operative Society. It was formed in the year
1959. The purpose for creating TANFED was to support farmers by supplying
them with fertilizers, seeds, pesticides, and also assisting them in marketing
their agricultural produce. In addition, TANFED also produces their highly
popular brand of fertilizer known as ‘Pamani’. It cannot be disputed that the
products developed and marketed by the TANFED benefit a wide range of
agricultural activities and result in improvement of the soil fertility and crop
yields.
__________
Page11 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
18. These products are distributed through the Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Credit Societies (PACCS), and also through some private agencies.
In addition to these primary objects, TANFED also manages the storage of
agricultural produces, including cold storage facilities and the distribution of
Kerosene. TANFED is mandated to operate throughout the State of Tamil
Nadu, except the Districts of Thanjavur and Nilgiris.
19. Let me now turn to the structure and control of TANFED.
Shareholding Pattern and Constitution of the Body of members of
TANFED:
20. The membership of TANFED has four categories. They are:
(1) Primary Co-operative Marketing Societies working at Taluk levels;
(2) Thanjavur Co-operative Marketing Federation Limited (TCMF),
Tiruvarur;
(3) Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation (TNWC); and
(4) The Government of Tamil Nadu.
21. Based on the counter affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, it is evident
that the authorised paid up share capital, working capital and financial details as
of 31.03.2025, are as follows:
__________
Page12 of 46https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,Share Capital as on 31.03.2025:
Members No. of Shares Share Captial
(Rs in Lakhs)
APCMS 109 79,75,000
Government of Tamil 1 62,92,000
Nadu
Cooperative Institutions 1 46,25,000
TNSCWHC 1 10,000
TCMF 1 10,000
Total 1,89,12,000
Working Capital as on 31.03.2025:
Working Capital (Rupees in Lakhs)
Share Capital 79,75,000
Government of Tamil Nadu 62,92,000
TTCMF 10,000
Financial details for the last 3 years:
Year Turnover Profits
(Rs in Lakhs) (Rs in Lakhs)
2021-2022 93587.78 3065.25
2022-2023 108185.05 2546.51
2023-2024 97132.41 2602.65
22. Among these shareholders, the Primary Co-operative Marketing
Societies fall under the category of societies defined in Section 2(2) of the
TNCS Act.
__________
Page13 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
23. Among the other shareholders of TANFED, the second category is the
Thanjavur Cooperative Marketing Federation Limited (TCMF). This body is
under the administrative control of the Department of the Cooperation, Food,
and Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu. The head of TCMF is
the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. At the district level, it is the Joint
Registrar of the Cooperative Societies, Tiruvarur. He exercises direct
supervisory control over TCMF. While there is a Board of Management
controlling TCMF, who are chosen from the members of the primary
cooperative society, its day-to-day administration is conducted by the Managing
Director of the said society. The Managing Director is again an Official of the
Government of Tamil Nadu, at the rank of either an Additional Registrar or a
Joint Registrar. In order to ensure that such societies, which cater to a crucial
need of this State, whenever there is no elected Board, the Government appoints
a Special Officer or an Administrator to manage the TCMF’s affairs. The
TCMF is the lead marketing federation for agricultural societies in the erstwhile
united Thanjavur District, and after its trifurcation for the current districts of
Thanjavur, Tiruvarur and Nagapattinam.
24. The third category of shareholder is the Tamil Nadu Warehousing
Corporation (TNWC). This is an undertaking of the Government of Tamil
Nadu. It provides essential storage facilities for agricultural produce in this
__________
Page14 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
State. The corporate composition of TNWC is shared between the Government
of Tamil Nadu and Central Government owned Warehousing Corporation,
namely, Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). The TNWC is headed by a
Managing Director, who is a senior member of the Indian Administrative
Service (IAS) of the Tamil Nadu cadre. Of the remaining members of the Board
of Directors, five Directors are nominated by the Government of Tamil Nadu,
usually from the Departments of Agriculture, Finance and Civil Supplies. The
CWC appoints the directors for the remaining members of the Board, with at
least one representing the flagship financial institution of Bharat, namely, the
State Bank of India.
25. The shareholding pattern of TANFED has been analysed in detail, in
order to point out that apart from the Primary Co-operative Marketing Societies,
the other three major shareholders are either managed by the officials appointed
by the Government of Tamil Nadu or the Government of Tamil Nadu itself as a
direct shareholder. The Government holds share capital to an extent of
Rs.62,92,000.00.
26. Looking at the financial figures set-forth above from a bird’s eye
point of view, one might be persuaded to reach a conclusion that the
Government of Tamil Nadu is merely a shareholder without exercising
__________
Page15 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
substantial control over TANFED. Yet, the institutional composition of the
TCMF and TNWC would indicate that the policy mandates are necessarily to be
informed by officers, belonging to the IAS, of Tamil Nadu cadre.
27. I do not want to rest the conclusion regarding control, based only on
these statistical data. Hence, I will refer to certain provisions of the TNCS Act
and the Rules made thereunder.
Structure of a Co-operative Society as per the TNCS Act:
28. In Tamil Nadu, the co-operatives operate under a three-tier system,
namely, the apex body at the State level, the District/Central body at the District
level, and primary level co-operative societies at the grass roots or at the Village
level. All the primary level co-operatives of all types get federated into their
respective district level co-operative bodies. The district ones get federated into
their respective State level unions and federations. An Apex Society is defined
under Section 2(5) of the Act as follows:
“2(5) Apex Society” means a state level registered society
whose area of operation extends to the whole of the State of Tamil
Nadu and which has as its principal object, the promotion of the
principal objects of, and the provision of facilities for the
operations of, other registered societies affiliated to it and
classified as an apex society by the Registrar;”__________
Page16 of 46https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
29. TANFED is a society, which comes under this definition, which
refers to a co-operative society that stands at the top of a particular co-operative
structure in the State. Under Section 33(1) of the TNCS Act, the management of
every registered society vests with a board. Explanation (1) to Section 33(1)
holds that a “functional director”, for the purposes of clause (c) of Sub-Section
(2), means a paid officer of the society or an officer of the Government
department or representative of central or an apex society, etc., having relation
with functioning of the Registered Society.
30. The TNCS Act itself makes a difference between Apex, Central, and
Primary Societies.
(a)Apex Society: A society whose area of operations extends to the whole
of the State. Examples of such bodies are Tamil Nadu State Apex Co-operative
Bank Limited (TNSC Bank), Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers
Federation Limited (Aavin), etc.
(b)Central Society: A central society is one which caters to the needs in a
district.
(c)Primary Society: A primary society is one which is at the grass root
level of a Cooperative Structure. The area of operation of such a cooperative
society is fixed by the Registrar under Section 16 of the TNCS Act.
__________
Page17 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
31. At this juncture, in order to determine whether or not an Apex Co-
operative Society such as TANFED is a body owned, controlled as substantially
financed by the Government, it is pertinent to delve into the managerial,
regulatory, administrative and financial control of an apex co-operative society,
including the relevant provisions enacted under the TNCS Act and Rules made
thereunder.
32. Insofar as the provisions dealing with management is concerned,
(a) Section 33(3)(a) of the TNCS Act declares that the Board of an Apex
Society and a Central Society will consist of not less than eleven, but not more
than twenty-one members.
(b) The power to appoint a Managing Director to an Apex Society vests
exclusively with the Government of Tamil Nadu. This is in terms of Section
33(7) of the Act.
(c) Under Section 33(8), notwithstanding anything contained under
Section 33(1), the Government, if it has taken shares in an Apex Body, (as in
the case of TANFED), is entitled to nominate two Functional Directors of the
Board.
(d) As per Section 33(9), in case, the Functional Director nominated by
the Government is of the view that any resolution passed by the Apex Body is
not in accordance with the Act, Rules, or bylaws of the society or is against the
__________
Page18 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
interests of an Apex Society or any other Society, he/she is bound to refer the
said resolution to the Government. Upon receipt of a report from the Functional
Director, the Government is given the power to take such action as it deems
necessary on the same.
Financial Participation and Capital Control:
33. A separate Chapter in the TNCS Act is titled as “State aid to the
Registered Societies”. This is found under Chapter VI.
(a)Section 52, entitles the Government to subscribe directly to share
capital of any registered society in the State.
(b)Insofar as the Apex Societies are concerned, Section 53 empowers the
Government to provide funds to an Apex Society for the purchase shares in
other registered societies. This fund is called “Principal State Partnership Fund”
(PSPF).
(c)This deals with the statutory funds governed under Section 54(1). As
to how an Apex Society should utilise this PSPF fund is specified under Section
54(2).
(d)The funds, which the central societies (as defined under Section 2(9))
receive from the PSPF of an apex society, should deploy the same as mandated
under Section 55 of the Act. It establishes a fund called the Subsidiary State
Partnership Fund (SSPF).
__________
Page19 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
(e)The liability of the Government and that of the Apex Society to deploy
moneys from PSPF and SSPF is governed by Section 57, which prescribes
liability is to be limited to the amount paid in respect of shares.
(f)Under Section 59, the Apex Society is granted indemnity in the event
of a registered society, in which the funds have been invested from the PSPF
funds, is wound-up or dissolved. However, proviso to Section 59(1) makes it
clear that whatever funds an Apex Society is to receive on account of winding
up of the co-operative society should be remitted directly to the Government.
(g)Under Section 60, all monies received by an Apex Society on account
of the purchase of the shares of the other registered societies utilising the PSPF,
on redemption, is to be credited to the PSPF. The same applies to the funds
which have been invested in the SSPF fund under Section 60(2). Even though
the shares stand in the name of the Apex Society, all monies and dividends
received therefrom has to be paid to the Government. The manner of disposal of
PFPS and SSPF, in the event of winding up of an apex society is covered under
Section 61. Furthermore, PSPF and SSPF funds do not form part of the assets of
an Apex Society as per Section 62. The agreements entered into between the
Government and the Apex Society too, is subject to the aforesaid provisions as
given under Section 63.
__________
Page20 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
Administrative Powers and Control Over Functioning and
Governance of Apex Societies:
34. A crucial aspect of control of an Apex Society is found under Chapter
IX. This chapter relates to audit, inquiry, inspection and investigation, surcharge
and supersession of societies. While other societies undergo a mere audit, when
it comes to an audit of an Apex Society, under Section 80(9) the same must be
placed before the Legislative Assembly of the State of Tamil Nadu in the
manner prescribed.
35. The TANFED is not a Bank, so we need not concern ourselves with
the restrictions on the powers of the Government incorporated under Chapter
XIV-A, which deals with special provisions to short term cooperative credit
structure societies. That Chapter is exclusively reserved for State Apex
Cooperative Banks and Central Apex Cooperative Banks.
36. TANFED is specifically included in the schedule to the Act. It falls
under Item 4 of Part A of the Schedule. This schedule has to be read along with
Section 2(25) of the TNCS Act. The purpose of incorporating TANFED in the
schedule is to make certain provisions of the Cooperative Societies Act
applicable. The relevant provision is Section 75, which enables the Government
__________
Page21 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
to create a common cadre in service for such institutions and also for operation
of Section 33 of the TNCS Act. An analysis of the Act shows that the
Government not only appoints the Managing Director of an Apex Cooperative
Society like TANFED, but is also empowered to bring forth a common cadre,
since TANFED falls under Part A of the schedule to the Act.
37. The provisions of the Act discussed so far shows that the Government
exercises a wide control over an apex society, which is not merely regulatory or
supervisory, but is direct, structural and determinative, amounting to substantial
control.
38. Let us now look at the TNCS Rules, 1988, which have been framed
by the Government to implement the TNCS Act.
(a)Rule 25-A mandates the manner in which an audit report of an Apex
Society should be placed before the Legislative Assembly. This corresponds to
Section 80(9) of the Act.
(b)Insofar as the refund for the value of the share is concerned, this is
governed by Rule 29.
(c)The expenditure of societies, including Apex Societies is fixed by this
Rule. It contemplates the creation of “Common Good Fund” under Rule 98. In
case, an apex society seeks to spend more than Rs.25,000 towards the common
__________
Page22 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
goods fund, it cannot be incurred, without the prior approval, of the Registrar of
Co-operative Societies.
(d) If an apex society wants to utilise the funds, even for the purpose of
assisting an employee who has died in harness, it can do so only after obtaining
the previous approval of the Government under Rule 99(2).
(e)Rule 145 fixes the qualification for appointment of the Managing
Directors by the Government under Section 33(7). TANFED is found in Serial
No.4 of the Table appended to Rule 145. The qualification to be appointed as a
Managing Director of TANFED, as provided under the table appended to Rule
145, is as follows:
(1)A member of the Indian Administrative Service (IAS); or
(2)An Officer of a Cooperative Department not below the rank of the
Joint Registrar of Cooperative Society; or
(3)An Officer of the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) not below the rank of a
Joint Chief Officer; or
(4)An Officer of the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural
Development (NABARD) not below the rank of the Deputy Director.
39. Rule 146 states that the Managing Director would have to carry out
the resolution of the Board, only if they are in accordance with the Act, Rules,
bye-laws, and when they are not against the interest of the society. In case they
__________
Page23 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
are not so in accordance with the aforesaid parameters, the Managing Director
is mandated to refer the resolution to the Government.
40. Rule 146(2) holds that the Managing Director appointed by the
Government shall have the overall control of the day-to-day administration in
the society.
41. The Recruitment Bureau established under Section 74 is called upon
to recruit all the paid officers and servants in the category of a Junior Assistant
and above, in respect of all the categories of Apex Societies. Paid officers, and
servants below the rank of Junior Assistant, and all technical posts in an Apex
Body can be recruited, only by the Recruitment Bureau of a Revenue District.
42. Under Rule 151, an Apex Society should inform the Recruitment
Bureau of the State or Recruitment Bureau for the Revenue District with respect
to such vacancies as falling under their scope of recruitment.
43. The Members of Board of Director for TANFED too, is stipulated
under Rule 59 read with Schedule II. Of the 21 Directors of the Board, 4
belonging to Schedule Caste /Schedule Tribe community are to be elected from
the boards of the affiliated societies, including 6 women candidates.
__________
Page24 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
44. Similarly, the Functional Directors of TANFED, in terms of Schedule
II Clause 4(3), should be drawn from the Tamil Nadu Apex Cooperative Bank,
TNWC, and Additional Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Marketing, Planning
and Development), and the Managing Director of the Federation.
45. Finally, the Registrar’s powers to enforce the performance of duties is
provided under Section 166 of the Act. Under this Section, the Registrar is
vested with the powers of a Collector under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery
Act, 1864, to take necessary action for recovering expenses, as if they were
arrears of land revenue.
46. A detailed survey of the Act and Rules show that they contemplate
the managerial, administrative and financial control of the Government and its
officials over Apex bodies like TANFED. None of these aspect have been gone
into by the 1st respondent in its impugned order. It has merely referred to the
investments made by the Government and placed it against the loans, which has
been incurred by the TANFED and has come to a conclusion that the
Government does not have control over TANFED.
__________
Page25 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
Discussion of Authorities:
47. I shall now turn to the case law relied upon by both sides. The
petitioner, respondents, and the learned Amicus Curiae read extensively from
Thalappalam‘s case (cited supra). Hence, let me now analyse the history of
both the cases and how it went up to the Supreme Court and what were the
issues decided by the Supreme Court.
48. Thalappalam‘s case arose out of a Writ Petition filed by the
Co-operative Bank before the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. The Registrar
of Co-operative Societies had issued a Circular in No.23/2006 dated
01.06.2006. It was issued to all Co-operative Societies including the writ
petitioner. The Circular stated that all Co-operative Societies under the control
of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies are “public authorities” under the RTI
Act. All the Societies were informed that they are liable to furnish information
to all applicants under the RTI Act. The Information Officer in the Co-operative
Departments were instructed that, if any application is received by them seeking
information regarding any Co-operative Society, such application should be
forwarded to the said Co-operative Society, so as to enable that Society to
furnish the information to the applicant.
__________
Page26 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
49. One of the members of the Thalappalam Society, named,
Mr.K.T.Thomas, submitted an application to the Assistant Registrar (General),
Pala, requesting certain information. The Assistant Registrar, who is the Public
Information Officer under the Co-operation Department, forwarded this
application to Thalappalam Society and called upon it to furnish the details as
sought for by Mr.K.T.Thomas. This was as per the proceedings dated
05.04.2006. The Assistant Registrar also called upon the Thalappalam Society
to appoint a Public Information Officer to handle the petition filed by
Mr.K.T.Thomas. Challenging the Circular of the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies dated 01.06.2006 and the direction given by the Assistant Registrar,
this Writ Petition came to be filed. The Writ Petition also sought a declaration
that Thalappalam Society is not a ‘public authority’ as defined under Section
2(h) of the RTI Act.
50. The learned Single Judge (Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J., as he then
was) clubbed this Writ Petition with another Writ Petition and pronounced an
order on 03.04.2009. He dismissed the Writ Petitions, holding that Co-operative
Societies are ‘public authorities’ for the purpose of RTI Act and that all
information accessible through the mechanism of the Kerala Co-operative
Societies Act and Rules made thereunder, become “information” for the
purpose of RTI Act.
__________
Page27 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
51. Aggrieved by the same, the Societies preferred a Writ Appeal before a
Division Bench. This appeal was heard by K.Balakrishnan Nair and
CT.Ravikumar, JJ. (as he then was). The Division Bench held that the definition
of a ‘Public Authority’ under Section 2(h) includes bodies owned, controlled or
substantially financed, directly or indirectly, by the funds provided by the State
Government.
52. After analysing the role of the State of Kerala in financing and
controlling the primary agricultural co-operative credit societies, including past
essential contributions and the Registrar’s statutory control, the Bench
concluded that, though the Registrar exercises pervasive control, this is distinct
from the control by the State Government itself. Consequently, it held, the
words, “owned” or “controlled” are not qualified by “directly or indirectly, by
funds provided by the State Government”, which only quantifies “substantially
financed”. They also held that the Circular of the Registrar dated 01.06.2006 is
only an opinion without legal authority and obedience to it is only optional.
They concluded, whether or not the Co-operative Society is a “public
authority”, is a disputed question of fact and that must be decided by the
competent authority under the RTI Act, based on whether the said Society is
substantially financed by the State.
__________
Page28 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
53. Since financing and control vary amongst co-operative societies, the
Bench concluded, no general decision can be made. It directed the competent
authority to decide the status of each society on a case-by-case basis when the
matter arises before him. Having come to these findings, the Writ Appellate
Court vacated the findings of the learned Single Judge that Co-operative
Societies are ‘public authorities’ under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. It also
directed that no coercive action can be taken against Societies for
non-compliance of the Circular of the Registrar dated 01.06.2006, unless a
determination that the Society is the public authority under the RTI Act is made.
54. In the meantime, one Sunilkumar, a member of the Mulloor Co-
operative Society filed an application under the RTI Act, seeking personal loan
information of other members of the Mulloor Society. The Society did not
respond. Mr.Sunilkumar filed an application before the Kerala State
Information Commission (KSIC) seeking for a direction to furnish the
information. Relying upon the Circular issued by the Registrar of Co-operative
Societies dated 01.06.2006, the KSIC directed the Society to furnish the
information. Thereafter, Mulloor Society informed Mr.Sunilkumar that the
information sought was “confidential in nature” and one warranting
“commercial confidence”. It further stated that the information had no relevance
to the public activity carried on by the Society. Consequently, it refused
__________
Page29 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
disclosure. The KSIC passed an order on 16.01.2008, imposing penalties on the
Mulloor Society. The Society challenged this order by way of a Writ Petition. It
argued that it is an autonomous body and not a public authority and that the
financial data of its members are confidential and are incapable of being
disclosed.
55. A learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court dismissed the Writ
Petition filed by the Mulloor Society. He also, like Thottathil Radhakrishnan, J.
(as he then was), held that Co-operative Society is a “public authority” under
Section 2(h) of the RTI Act. Having come to this conclusion, he held, Societies
are obligated to comply with RTI queries under the regulatory framework.
56. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, appeals were
preferred before the Division Bench. The matter came up before a Division
Bench consisting of C.N.Ramachandran Nair and B.P.Ray, JJ. The judgment of
the Division Bench in Thalappalam‘s case was cited before them. After going
through the judgment of the Division Bench in Thalappalam‘s case, the learned
Division Bench in Mulloor’s case disagreed with the same and referred the
matter to a Full Bench.
__________
Page30 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
57. The issues presented before the Full Bench was whether a Co-
operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act is a
“public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act and
whether such societies are required to comply with the provisions of the RTI
Act, including appointing Information Officers and furnishing information as
mandated. The Full Bench, yet again, analysed the statutory scheme of the
Kerala Co-operative Societies Act and the Rules made thereunder. It also
analysed the Right to Information Act, in particular, the definitions of
‘information’ and ‘public authority’. The Court, after analysing, concluded that
the view of the Single Judge declaring Co-operative Societies registered under
the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act as “public authorities” within the
meaning of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, is correct. It confirmed the applicability
of the RTI Act to Co-operative Societies Act. It also upheld the Circular of the
Registrar dated 01.06.2006, directing the Societies to implement the RTI
provisions, including appointing Public Information Officers and furnishing
information. The Full Bench relied upon the principles of transparency and
accountability in Co-operative Societies as a bed rock for their functioning and
held that if such information is given public access, it will prevent
mismanagement. It was in this scenario that the matter reached the Supreme
Court.
__________
Page31 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
58. The Supreme Court was called upon to determine the issue, whether
cooperative societies registered under the Kerala Co-operatives Societies Act,
1969, be termed as ‘public authorities’ within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the
RTI Act.
59. The Supreme Court, in defining ‘public authority’, held as follows:
(1) The definition of ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) is
exhaustive, and cooperative societies typically do not fall under
this category;
(2) Merely because the Registrar of Co-operative Societies exercise
regulatory and oversight mechanism over all the co-operative
societies in the State, it cannot be held that there is ‘deep and
pervasive’ government control;
(3) The societies are managed by elected bodies from and out of the
members of the society;
(4) The criteria to come to a conclusion that an authority is a ‘public
authority’ should be “substantial funding from the Government”,
that is to say, significant funding essential for keeping up the
societies’ operations must be provided by the appropriate
Government.
__________
Page32 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
60. Furthermore, the Court held that the information sought were personal
data of the members of the society, and hence, they are entitled for protection
under Article 21 of the Constitution of India – Right to Privacy, and are exempt
from disclosure by virtue of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. It found that, there
being no substantial public interest in the information sought for, the question of
disclosure does not arise at all.
61. An analysis of this judgment shows that the Supreme Court, after
surveying the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, Article
12 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India, held that the autonomy of the
cooperative societies should be respected. Only those authorities, over which
the Government has a substantial control, would come within the scope of the
RTI Act. I am entirely in agreement with the view expressed by
Mr.M.S.Palanisamy, the learned Amicus Curiae, that this judgment is a
precedent for societies which are primary in nature. However, it cannot be a
precedent for societies like TANFED, which is an Apex Society, where the
managerial, financial and regulatory control, including audit oversight, are held
by the Government of Tamil Nadu and are reported to the State Legislative
Assembly.
__________
Page33 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
62. Turning to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Subhash
Chandra Agarwal vs IFFCO, cited supra, an analysis of the judgment is
necessary. The writ petitioner was one Subhash Chandra Agarwal. He filed an
RTI application with IFFCO on 20.01.2011. IFFCO rejected the application
holding that it is not a “public authority” under the RTI Act. The first and
second appeals preferred therefrom, were also dismissed. It was held by all the
authorities under the RTI Act that IFFCO is not a “public authority” under
Section 2(h) of the Act. They held so since IFFCO was not substantially
financed or controlled by the appropriate Government. Challenging the same, a
writ petition came before the Delhi High Court.
63. The Court found IFFCO is a society formed under the Multi-State
Cooperative Societies Act. It was not in dispute, the Central Government had
established IFFCO in 1967. At IFFCO’s inception, the Union Government had
nominated Board Members of IFFCO and had substantially funded it. However,
by 2004, the equity of the Central Government had been repaid in full. On the
date on which the information was sought for under the RTI, the Union
Government no longer held any equity in IFFCO.
64. As per the bye-law 34(3) of the IFFCO’s Constitution, upto three
nominees, depending upon equity share captial percentage threshold, could be
__________
Page34 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
appointed. The Court found, with no Government equity, the Central
Government had no entitlement to nominate Directors.
65. Insofar as the claim that IFFCO gets substantial subsidy from the
Central Government, the Court pointed out that the huge amount of subsidy that
IFFCO receives do not constitute “substantial financing.” This is because,
subsidies were viewed as a mechanism to keep fertilisers’ prices low for farmers
by covering the difference, between production cost and sale prices. This was
not a grant to IFFCO itself.
66. The Court also found that subsidies were paid to all qualifying
manufacturers and importers including IFFCO, proportionate to their sale.
These entities merely acted as transmission mechanism from the Central
Government to the farmers. Hence, the Court held subsidies allotted cannot be
considered as direct financing to IFFCO itself.
67. I have narrated the discussion of the Delhi High Court only in order to
point out that the nature, function and financing of IFFCO is fundamentally
different from TANFED. The TNCS Act and the Rules made thereunder
contemplate, as analysed earlier, administrative, managerial as well as financial
control by the State Government, together with audit oversight. Hence,
__________
Page35 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
TANFED can no way be compared with IFFCO. Thus, this judgment does not
come to the rescue of TANFED.
68. I now turn to the judgment in The Public Information Officer vs.
The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Others, 2015 (4)
CTC 105. The appeals arose before the Division Bench out of the common
orders passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.9713 of 2012 etc., batch
dated 25.04.2012. All the appellants before the Division Bench were
Co-operative Banks at the primary level. The question they presented before the
Single Judge was whether a Co-operative Society registered under the TNCS
Act of 1983 is a “public authority” within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the
RTI Act. All the Writ Petitions were dismissed. Hence, the Writ Appeals.
69. It was argued by the appellants that the issue is covered by the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Thalappalam‘s case, cited supra. The
Division Bench concluded that the Thalappalam‘s case applies to the facts of
the case and consequently, the appeals were allowed. Before the Division
Bench, it had been conceded by the counsel for the State Information
Commission that the judgment in Thalappalam‘s case applies. However, he had
contended that as the society is manned by a Special Officer appointed by the
Government, the judgment is distinguishable.
__________
Page36 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
70. The Division Bench held that Co-operative Societies, which are
merely under the regulatory control of the Registrar of Societies, are not public
bodies. The Division Bench pointed out that Co-operative Societies, which are
owned, controlled or substantially financed directly or indirectly by the State or
Central Governments or formed, established or constituted by law made by the
Parliament or such legislature, would not be covered by Thalappalam’s
judgment. The Bench also pointed out that the appeals pertain to Co-operative
Societies, which do not fall under any of the aforesaid categories. It found that
the appellant Societies before it do not fall under the classification of ‘owned,
controlled or substantially financed by the State or Central Government’ and
consequently, following Thalappalam‘s case, it allowed the appeals and the
writ petitions.
71. After analysis of the TNCS Act and the Rules made thereunder, I
have concluded that the State of Tamil Nadu, not merely finances TANFED, but
has managerial, financial, regulatory control, including a legislative audit
oversight over Apex bodies like TANFED. Hence, the judgment in The Public
Information Officer vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission
and Others, 2015 (4) CTC 105, cannot be applied to the facts of the present
case.
__________
Page37 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
72. Similarly, in The President, Z.B. 70, Madhanam Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Society Vs. The State Information Commissioner
and others in W.P.No.14298 of 2022 dated 06.06.2024, the writ petitioner was
an autonomous body controlled by the general body of its members. It was a
primary agricultural co-operative credit society. The learned Single Judge
concluded that it is a Society, which falls under the category covered in
Thalappalam‘s case and as the appellant in The Public Information Officer
vs. The Registrar, Tamil Nadu Information Commission and Others, 2015 (4)
CTC 105 and consequently, came to a conclusion that it is not a public authority
under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act.
73. In fine, the judgment of the Supreme Court in Thalappalam‘s case
and that of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge referred above, all
deal with Primary Co-operative Societies, which are managed and controlled by
its independent Board of Directors, only under the regulatory control of the
Registrar of Co-operative Societies. In none of those cases, the petitioners were
able to demonstrate that the Society is controlled by the Government as in the
case of TANFED. The TNCS Act and the Rules themselves distinguish between
several kinds of co-operative bodies. One cannot compare an Apex body with a
Primary Society. Especially, a Society like TANFED, where the Government
has serious stakes and control. Therefore, those judgments are not applicable in
__________
Page38 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
the case of an Apex Co-operative Society, as defined under Section 2(5) of the
TNCS Act.
74. At this stage, I shall refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in
Reserve Bank of India (RBI) vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry [(2016) 3 SCC 525]. This
case arose from the writ petitions filed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and
regulators like NABARD, challenging the orders passed by the Central
Information Commission (CIC). The CIC had ordered the disclosure of list of
defaulters, advisory notes, inspection reports, and penalty orders to anyone who
had applied under the RTI Act. On a petition filed before the Supreme Court, all
the cases were transferred to that Court to resolve the issue, whether RBI and
others banks can refuse to disclose supervisory and inspection information by
invoking Sections 8(1)(a), 8(1)(d), and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The Court
analysed each of the aforesaid Sections and rejected the plea of the banks.
(a) Insofar as fiduciary relationship under Section 8(1)(e) is concerned,
the Supreme Court held that the information obtained by the RBI from banks
and financial institutions, were on the basis of statutory inspections and are not
voluntary in nature. Hence, the information collected by authority of law do not
fall under fiduciary duty and therefore, rejected the plea.
__________
Page39 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
(b) On the plea of Section 8(1)(d), the Court held that where a larger
public interest exists, like safeguarding funds of the depositors or incidents of
mismanagement, they far outweigh the private interest of the competitive
concerns. Consequently, disclosure should be made with respect to economic
interest plea invoking Section 8(1)(a).
(c) The Supreme Court further held that transparency of regulatory
actions bolsters public confidence, whereas withholding information, which is
an aspect of secrecy, only grows suspicion in the minds of the people. The
Court held that citizens of this Country are the ultimate sovereign owners of the
information. It pointed out that disclosure of inspection reports, penalty reports,
lists of large defaulters, etc., would enable the populace to hold the regulators
and banks accountable, and this will have a direct impact on curbing fraudulent
activities too. As Louis Brandeis, J. expressed, sunlight is said to be the best of
disinfectants; electric light, the most efficient policeman (Other People’s
Money: And How Bankers use it (1914) Harper’s Weekly Vol.58 No.2974
Pg.10), implying disclosure of corruption or hidden action to public scrutiny has
a tendency to naturally purify them.
75. RBI’s judgment was applied by the Bombay High Court in the case of
Jalgaon Jillha Urban Co-operative Banks Association Limited vs. State of
__________
Page40 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
Maharashtra and Others [2017 (4) Mh.L.J 301]. In that case, writ petitions
were filed before the Bombay High Court by the Jalgaon Jillha Urban Co-
operative Banks Association Limited, and other financial institutions registered
under the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960. It was contended by
the petitioners that co-operative institutions registered under the Cooperative
Societies Act are not public authorities and therefore, not subject to the
provisions of the RTI Act. The petitioners relied upon Section 34-A of the
Banking Regulation Act, 1949, to urge that information held by them is
confidential and not subject to disclosure. It was further urged that the
petitioners’ institutions do not receive any Governmental financial aid, either
directly or indirectly. The cause of action for the writ petitioner was that the
authorities created under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act were being
insisted upon for disclosure of information under the RTI Act. Hence, the writ
petition for a declaration that they are not bound to do so.
76. A Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, relying upon
Jayantilal N. Mistry’s case (cited supra), observed that cooperative institutions
are subject to the pervasive control of the authorities created under the Co-
operative Societies Act and held that the writ petitions, if granted, would run
contrary to the observations of the Supreme Court of the aforesaid judgment in
paragraphs 58, 59, 60, 62 to 68 of Jayantilal N. Mistry’s case and dismissed the
__________
Page41 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
said writ petition. I should point out that the attention of the Division Bench in
Jayantilal N. Mistry’s case was not drawn to the attention of the Court in
Thalappalam’s case.
77. It would now be relevant to take note of the judgment of the Supreme
Court in S.S.Rana vs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies and another [(2006)
11 SCC 634]. The Court held that a Co-operative Society is not controlled in its
day-to-day functions by the State. Regulatory control by Statutory Authorities
cannot be used to consider them as a ‘State’ within the meaning of Article 12 of
the Constitution of India. This judgment was relied upon in Thalappalam’s case
to come to a conclusion.
78. The aforesaid analysis of the Act and the Rules made thereunder
shows that TANFED is under the managerial, regulatory, financial and audit
control of the State of Tamil Nadu and the person managing the day-to-day
affairs of the society is appointed by the State Government. The monies that the
TANFED gets for its activities are not only from the admission fee of its
members, which are extremely nominal, but also from the share contribution
made by its members. Three out of four of whom are controlled by the State
Government. Thus, even if this Court were to apply the tests in Thalappalam’s
case, TANFED would be covered under RTI Act. An apex society like
__________
Page42 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
TANFED, over which the Government has such a control, cannot be compared
with a primary level co-operative society. Such a comparison is akin to the
classic “chalk and cheese” equivalence. Hence, the judgment rendered in the
context of primary level co-operative societies cannot be applied to Apex
Societies.
79. The policy note issued by the Ministry of Cooperation, Food and
Consumer Protection, Government of Tamil Nadu for the year 2024-2025,
discloses that TANFED has been appointed by the State of Tamil Nadu as the
Tamil Nadu Nodal Agent with respect to the activities carried out by the
National Agricultural Co-operative Marketing Federation (NAFED). In that
capacity, it sponsors and undertakes Price Support Scheme (PSS) to protect
farmers from price declines. Furthermore, whenever the prices of essential
commodities undergo an unreasonable hike, TANFED intervenes and stabilises
the prices of the essential items. All these show that TANFED acts as an
implementing arm of the State Government for its agricultural policies.
80. I should point out that the Government of Tamil Nadu itself,
recognizing that TANFED is an important branch of its governance, issued G.O.
(Ms).No.235, Cooperation Food and Consumer Protection (4E1) Department,
dated 22.11.2007, appointing Public Information Officers (PIOs) with respect to
__________
Page43 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
all matters relating to TANFED and PCMS-NCDC schemes. When the
Government is clear that the information held by TANFED should be disclosed
under RTI Act, I am unable to appreciate the stand of the respondents 2 and 3,
that the RTI Act does not cover them.
81. In light of the above discussion, as the 1 st respondent merely applied
Thalappalam’s case (cited supra) and matched the share capital against the
loans, it has fell in error. No effort has been taken by the 1 st respondent to see
the extensive control that the State of Tamil Nadu exercises over TANFED
through the Department of Cooperation and its Audit Department. Hence, I am
constrained to interfere.
82. In addition, I should point out the informations that have been sought
by the writ petitioner do not fall under any of the exemptions provided under
Section 8 of the RTI Act.
83. Accordingly, this Writ Petition stands allowed. The impugned order
passed by the 1st respondent in SA-12510-A-2023 dated 03.10.2025 and thereby
confirming the orders of the lower Authorities are quashed. There shall be a
direction to the 3rd respondent to provide the information as sought by the
petitioner in the application dated 02.05.2023 under the RTI Act, within a
__________
Page44 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
period of four weeks from the date of uploading of this order. This Court places
on record its appreciation for the assistance rendered by the learned Amicus
Curiae. There shall be no order as to costs.
22-04-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
Jeni/Lm
To
1.The Commissioner,
State Information Commission,
No.19, Government Farm House, Chennai-600 035.
2.The General Manager (Sales) Cum
Appellate Authority,
Tamil Nadu Co-operative Marketing
Federation Limited (TANFED)
No.91, St. Marys Road, Chennai-600 018.
3.The Deputy Registrar / Secretary Cum
Public Information Officer,
Tamilnadu Co-operative Marketing
Federation Limited (TANFED)
No.91, St. Marys Road, Chennai-600 018.
__________
Page45 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP No. 40146 of 2025,
V.LAKSHMINARAYANAN, J.
Jeni/Lm
WP No. 40146 of 2025
22-04-2026
__________
Page46 of 46
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
