- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3867 WP No. 47131 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 47131 OF 2013 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: M/S. SHIMOGA CO-OPERATIVE MILK PRODUCERS SOCIETIES UNION LTD, MACHENAHALLI, NIDIGE POST, SHIMOGA-577 222, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRASHANTH.B.R., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.RAMACHANDRAN.K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA INFORMATION COMMISSION, NO.14/3, ARAVIND BHAVAN, MITHIK SOCIETY BUILDING, NRUPUTHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE INFORMATION COMMISSIONER. 2. MR.PRASHANT V.PAWAR GANDHIGALLI, RANIBENNUR-581 115, HAVERI DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. VIDYA., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. G.B.SHARATH GOWDA., ADVOCATE R1; R2-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3867 WP No. 47131 of 2013 THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Prashanth.B.R., counsel on behalf of Sri.K.Ramachandran., for the petitioner and Smt.Vidya., counsel on behalf of Sri.G.B.Sharath Gowda., for respondent No.1 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the State Information Commission vide Annexure-A. 3. Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with care. 4. It is noted that Sri.Prashant V.Pawar - the second respondent had sought certain information from the petitioner. The request to furnish the information was declined on the ground that the petitioner is not a public authority. Hence, the second respondent was constrained to file an appeal before the first respondent. The Commission directed the petitioner to - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3867 WP No. 47131 of 2013 furnish the information that was sought by the second respondent. 5. Counsel Sri.Prashanth.B.R., in presenting his arguments contended that the Cooperative Society is not a public authority. He argued by saying that the Commission could not have entertained the appeal. To substantiate the said contention, counsel placed reliance on the following decisions: I. THALAPPALAM SER. COOP. BANK LTD., AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KERALA AND OTHERS in Civil Appeal No.9017/2013 disposed of on 07.10.2013. II. DATTAPRASAD COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED VS. KARNATAKA STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSION in W.P.No.16901/2006 disposed of on 30.06.2008. 6. Suffice it to note that the petitioner is a cooperative society. A perusal of the decisions referred to supra reflects that the Apex Court has held that the Cooperative Society is not a public authority. Hence, the Commission has erred in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3867 WP No. 47131 of 2013 entertaining the appeal. Therefore, the proceedings before the Commission is liable to set-aside and so, it is set-aside. 7. The Writ of Certiorari is ordered. The order dated 27.08.2013 passed by the State Information Commission vide Annexure-A is quashed. 8. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is allowed. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 9