JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Shikhar Anand for respondent No.1 and nobody appears for respondent No.3. 2. We have gone through the petition and heard the arguments. Under the circumstances, we feel that the matter can be decided even without the presence of the opposite party No.3. 3. The petitioner has challenged an order dated 30.4.2008 passed by Uttar Pradesh Rajya Suchana Ayog, the opposite party No.1 to the writ petition. By this order, the Information sought by opposite party No.3 with regard to a third person who is an employee of petitioner has been given. The petitioner has submitted that not apart from this case, in several other cases, such information has been given by the Information Commissioner. 4. Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan has made three fold arguments. Firstly, that the State Information Commission does not have the jurisdiction to give any information with regard to the petitioner bank. Secondly, he says that the information with regard to a third person could not have been given as per the provisions of "The Right to Information Act, 2005". Sri Shikhar Anand has defended the impugned order and has submitted that according to Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, the petitioner bank comes within the purview of Right to Information Act and thereby within purview of the State Information Commission. Sri Shikhar Anand has tried to defend the case on the ground of Section 2(h) of the Act secondly; he says that under Section 11 of the Act, the Information Officer is vested with the power of deciding whether information with regard to a third person can be given or not. 5. Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan has also argued that the State Commission should not have passed such an order for giving information because the State Commission is vested with the appellate powers and not of the Information officer. The duty was of the Information Commission under Section 18 of the Act. Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan says that an appeal has been provided under Section 19 which provides for first appeal under Section 19(1) and second appeal under Section 19(3). He has argued that the order of State Commission can not be passed as Second Appellate Court but has been passed directly on the application of the information seeker. Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan says that an appeal has been provided under Section 19 which provides for first appeal under Section 19(1) and second appeal under Section 19(3). He has argued that the order of State Commission can not be passed as Second Appellate Court but has been passed directly on the application of the information seeker. He has further argued that there is no discretion with the Information Officer of the State Commission to give any information with regard to a third person without the knowledge of the third party. 6. Lastly Sri Abdul Rajjak Khan has submitted that if the first arguments succeeds, there will be no reason to give findings on the second and third arguments. So we fee that "public authority" which has been defined under Section 2(h) of Right to Information Act 2005 may be quoted here as under:- "2(h) “public authority” means any authority or body or institution of self-government established or constituted,- (a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government Organisation substantially financed, directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;" 7. Sri Shikhar Anand has submitted that Section 2(h)(c) says that if any authority or body or institution of State Government is established by a law made by State Legislature, it shall come within purview of Right to Information Act. He has demonstrated that in paragraph 25 the petitioner has itself submitted that it is Society which is creation of the statute. Sri Shikhar Anand has further submitted that Section 2(h)(d) provides that such a body should be owned, controlled or substantially financed by the appropriate Government and he has demonstrated in paragraph 3 of the petition that the petitioner has himself submitted "That the Zila Sahkari Bank Limited Sitapur is being run by the petitioner which is a society. The said Society has been constituted for the upliftment and development besides the promotion by the members and the capital money of the society is Rs. 23,73,75/- crores, out of which the capital money of the Government is Rs. 30,729/-." A chart prepared upon Form-9 of the District Co-operative Bank Limited Sitapur is on record. The said Society has been constituted for the upliftment and development besides the promotion by the members and the capital money of the society is Rs. 23,73,75/- crores, out of which the capital money of the Government is Rs. 30,729/-." A chart prepared upon Form-9 of the District Co-operative Bank Limited Sitapur is on record. In paragraph 19 this fact has been further elaborated and the petitioner has submitted the government is only a shareholder of the petitioner, which is around 1% for which the government is paid the dividend in case of profit. 8. On the basis of these arguments Sri Shikhar Anand has forcefully argued that petitioner is creation of State Legislature, secondly; it is financed by the State Government and therefore it can be said that it is within purview of Right to Information Act. On the other hand Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan on the basis of his averments has submitted that the words under section 2(h) of the Act are very emphatic. The word used has been "substantially financed" which means that some funds are being infused, this will means that the State Government has infused a sumptuous amount of money either for the creation of the bank or its maintenance or its running or for any other purposes like miscellaneous expenditure including the salaries etc. He has been on the strength of paragraph 19 as well as paragraph 3, he has argued that Government is only share holder and that too of 1%. He has argued that a share holder is a different entity than from a financier. In paragraph 19, it has been clearly mentioned that the State Government is shareholder of 1% and it gets the dividend when the bank runs in profit. 9. It can be safely presumed that 1% of the total share is not a substantially financed amount. Right of having a share and that too of 1% will not give any deep and pervasive control of the Society hence it can not be done as escape within the meaning of Section 11 of the Act. 10. So far the other ground are concerned, we find that the order has been passed by the State Commission without inviting any objection or information from the third party regarding which information has been provided to the applicant. Section 11 of the Information Act needs to be quoted to elaborate the situation. 10. So far the other ground are concerned, we find that the order has been passed by the State Commission without inviting any objection or information from the third party regarding which information has been provided to the applicant. Section 11 of the Information Act needs to be quoted to elaborate the situation. We therefore quote for convenience here as under:- "11. Third party information.- (1) Where a Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof on a request made under this Act, which relates to or has been supplied by a third party and has been treated as confidential by that third party, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within five days from the receipt of the request, give a written notice to such third party of the request and of the fact that the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, intends to disclose the information or record, or part thereof, and invite the third party to make a submission in writing or orally, regarding whether the information should be disclosed, and such submission of the third party shall be kept in view while taking a decision about disclosure of information: Provided that except in the case of trade or commercial secrets protected by law, disclosure may be allowed if the public interest in disclosure outweighs in importance any possible harm or injury to the interests of such third party. (2) Where a notice is served by the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, under sub-section (1) to a third party in respect of any information or record or part thereof, the third party shall, within ten days from the date of receipt of such notice, be given the opportunity to make representation against the proposed disclosure. (3) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall, within forty days after receipt of the request under section 6, if the third party has been given an opportunity to make representation under sub-section (2), make a decision as to whether or not to disclose the information or record or part thereof and give in writing the notice of his decision to the third party. (4) A notice given under sub-section (3) shall include a statement that the third party to whom the notice is given is entitled to prefer an appeal under section 19 against the decision." 11. We find that order under challenge is not in accordance with the procedure laid down under the scheme made under Section 11 of the Information ACT. In RBI versus Rui Ferreira 2011 (5) MhLJ 765 (Bombay) it has been held that the legislative intent behind Section 11 is clear and reflected in the proviso which spells out the parameters when third-party information can be furnished or denied to the information seeker. The said proviso as well as section 8(1)(j) require balancing of two conflicting rights, namely, right to information and the right to confidentiality or privacy. In such cases which of the two conflicting rights has to be given primacy depends upon larger public interest. This is the test which has to be applied. The reasonable and proper manner of interpreting Section 11(1) is to keep in mind the test stipulated by the proviso to section 11. Further, Section 11 ensures that the principles of natural justice are complied with and also prescribes a fairly strict time schedule to ensure that the proceedings are not delayed. 12. Though the order was passed in 2008. The right to privacy has attained a substantial upgradation by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in latest judgment. Right to privacy has been given the constitutional status and it will perhaps become more hard for the Public Information Officer to deal with section 11 in future. The first proposition of law raised by Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan has been decided in his favour negating the arguments of the State Commission. We hold that the petitioner bank was not within purview of Right to Information Act. The order impugned passed by State Commission is therefore a nullity and it is set aside. The first proposition of law raised by Sri Abdul Razzaque Khan has been decided in his favour negating the arguments of the State Commission. We hold that the petitioner bank was not within purview of Right to Information Act. The order impugned passed by State Commission is therefore a nullity and it is set aside. Accordingly the petition is allowed.