JUDGMENT : Rule. Heard finally with consent of learned counsel for the parties. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the The State Information Commissioner in proceedings under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) directing the petitioner to supply information to the respondent No. 2. 2. The respondent No. 2 made an application on 10-9-2013 seeking information with regard to the manner in which payments were made by the petitioner towards various cheques drawn in favour of the respondent No. 2. The petitioner-Bank gave its reply pointing out that as the provisions of the Act of 2005 were not applicable to it, the information sought could not be supplied. The respondent No. 2 thereafter filed an appeal under provisions of section 19(1) of the Act of 2005. The stand as taken by the petitioners was reiterated and the first Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal on 26-11-2013. Being aggrieved, the respondent No. 2 filed second appeal under provisions of section 19(3) of the Act of 2005. The State Information Commissioner held that though the respondent No. 2 was not a member of the Bank, the Bank had received commission while clearing the cheques. Therefore, the applicant should be treated as a deemed member and should be supplied the necessary information. On that basis the appeal filed by the respondent No. 2 came to be allowed. 3. Shri D.V. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisions of the said Act were not applicable to the petitioner in as much as it was not a public authority within the meaning of section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. The respondent No. 2 was neither a shareholder nor a member of the Bank. It was submitted that the concept of deemed membership under provisions of Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 (for short, the Act of 1960) could not be applied in the present facts for the purposes of holding the respondent No. 2 entitled to receive information. Relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited and ors. vs. State of Kerala and ors., 2013(6) SCC 82, it was submitted that no directions could have been issued to the petitioner for supplying the desired information as it was not a public authority. He also relied upon judgment of learned Single Judge in Dr. Relying upon judgment of the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited and ors. vs. State of Kerala and ors., 2013(6) SCC 82, it was submitted that no directions could have been issued to the petitioner for supplying the desired information as it was not a public authority. He also relied upon judgment of learned Single Judge in Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. Amravati vs. State Information Commissioner, Vidarbha Region, Nagpur and ors., 2009(3) Mh.L.J. 364 in that context. 4. Shri M. A. Sable, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 supported the impugned order. According to him, the State Information Commissioner rightly applied provisions of section 32 of the Act of 1960 and treated the respondent No. 2 as a deemed member for being entitled to receive the requisite information. He submitted that Circular dated 27-1-2010 issued by the Co-operative department had been relied upon while passing the impugned order. He therefore submitted that the impugned order did not deserve to be interfered with. Shri A. Gedam, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 also supported the impugned order. According to him the information about the manner in which cheques drawn in the name of said respondent had been honoured was required to be supplied to him. He submitted that though the respondent No. 2 was not a member of the petitioner-Bank, he could be treated to be a deemed member for the purposes of receiving the information. 5. I have given due consideration to the respective submissions. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is not a "public authority" under section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. This finding has been recorded by the State Information Commissioner in the impugned order which finding is not under challenge. Similarly, it is not in dispute that the respondent No. 2 is not a member of the Bank under provisions of the Act of 1960. The only aspect therefore which remains for consideration is whether the respondent No. 2 could be treated as a deemed member by referring to section 32 of the Act of 1960 for the purposes of being supplied information as sought under provisions of the Act of 2005. 6. The only aspect therefore which remains for consideration is whether the respondent No. 2 could be treated as a deemed member by referring to section 32 of the Act of 1960 for the purposes of being supplied information as sought under provisions of the Act of 2005. 6. In Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra), the Supreme Court while considering provisions of the Act of 2005 along with provisions of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 held that societies registered under said enactment were not public authorities and only a public authority falling within the ambit of section 2(h) of the Act of 2005 could be directed to furnish information. It was further held that there was no question of adopting a liberal construction to the expression "public authority" to bring within its fold other authorities not falling within the ambit of section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. In the light of aforesaid law therefore, the question of considering the respondent No. 2 as a deemed member by referring to provisions of section 32 of the Act of 1960 would not arise. The entire premise that as the petitioner had received commission for honouring cheques from respondent No. 2, he was entitled to be supplied necessary information is not sustainable once it is found that the petitioner was not a "public authority" under provisions of section 2(h) of the Act of 2005. The concept of 'deemed member' has been provided for the purposes of the Act of 1960 and said concept cannot be stretched to hold the petitioner liable to furnish information under the Act of 2005. Reference to Circular dated 16-1-2010 is misconceived in the facts of the present case when the Act of 2005 itself is not found to be applicable. The judgment in Dr. Panjabrao Deshmukh Urban Co-operative Bank Ltd. (supra) supports the case of the petitioner. 7. In view of aforesaid, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Same is accordingly set aside and the application filed by the respondent No. 2 seeking necessary information is held to be not maintainable. The writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.