(1.) Transparency of information is vital in curbing corruption. The approach of the court must be to attenuate the area of secrecy as much as possible consistently with the requirement of public interest (Chief Information Commissioner Vs. State of Manipur : AIR 2012 SC 864).
(2.) The appellant is a Primary Co-operative Agricultural Rural Development Bank incorporated under the provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969. Respondents 4 and 5 sought certain information from the first respondent, the Public Information Officer/ Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Ernakulam under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The information sought by them related to granting of loans by the appellant and the expenses incurred by the appellant in connection with the cases instituted in regard to certain loan transactions and other matters. The first respondent sent Exts.P5 to P8 letters to the appellant, directing it to furnish him the aforesaid information. The Secretary of the appellant bank sent Ext.P9 reply to the first respondent stating that the bank is not a public authority and it is not liable to furnish the information. Thereafter, the sixth respondent, who is the Co-operative Inspector in the office of the first respondent, sent Ext.P10 letter to the appellant with a direction to furnish the information.
(3.) The appellant filed the writ petition challenging Exts.P5 to P8 and P10 orders. The learned Single Judge did not accept the challenge so made but directed the first respondent to hear the appellant and the fourth respondent and any other interested party before furnishing the information to the applicants under the Act.