JUDGMENT : R.Narayana Pisharadi, J. 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 v. 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. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader and the learned counsel for the fourth respondent. 5. The contentions of the appellant are twofold: (1) The appellant is not a public authority as defined under the Act and it is not liable to furnish the information required by the fourth and the fifth respondents under the Act. (2) The first respondent has no authority to collect the information, which is not available with him, from the appellant and to furnish such information to the fourth and the fifth respondents. 6. Section 2(h) of the Act defines 'public authority'. (2) The first respondent has no authority to collect the information, which is not available with him, from the appellant and to furnish such information to the fourth and the fifth respondents. 6. Section 2(h) of the Act defines 'public authority'. A cooperative society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 is not a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act and hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information sought for by a citizen under the Act. This is the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Thalappalam Service Co-operative Bank Limited v. State of Kerala : (2013) 16 SCC 82. Therefore, there can be no doubt with regard to the fact that the appellant is not obliged to furnish any information to the fourth and the fifth respondents, as per the provisions of the Act. 7. Then, the question arises whether the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, which is a public authority within the meaning of Section 2(h) of the Act, is empowered to collect information from the appellant and furnish it to the applicants under the Act. The contention of the appellant is that, what is not permitted to be done directly cannot be permitted to be done indirectly. This question has also been considered by the Apex Court in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank (supra). The Apex Court has held that the Registrar can gather those information from the society, to the extent permitted by law, but he is not obliged to disclose those information which is exempted from disclosure under Section 8 of the Act. Therefore, the Registrar can collect such information from the appellant which he is otherwise empowered to collect under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act and furnish to the applicant those information, of course, subject to the limitations and restrictions under the Act. 8. The issue had been dealt with by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Nedungapra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Public Information Officer ( 2018(3) KLT 355 ). A Division Bench of this Court, consisting one of us (Justice V.Chitambaresh), has affirmed that decision by judgment dated 09.07.2018 in W.A.No.1354 of 2018, taking the view as stated above. 9. The issue had been dealt with by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Nedungapra Service Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Public Information Officer ( 2018(3) KLT 355 ). A Division Bench of this Court, consisting one of us (Justice V.Chitambaresh), has affirmed that decision by judgment dated 09.07.2018 in W.A.No.1354 of 2018, taking the view as stated above. 9. True, in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Aditya Bandopadhyay: (2011) 8 SCC 497 , the Apex Court has held that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant. But, Aditya Bandopadhyay (supra) has to be understood in the light of the dictum laid down in the subsequent decision in Thalappalam Service Cooperative Bank (supra) wherein the powers of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have been specifically dealt with. 10. The appellant has no case that it has no obligation under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act to provide the information sought in Ext.P10 to the sixth respondent or that the sixth respondent is not empowered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act to have access to such information from the society. 11. The right to privacy of a third party is protected by the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to hear the appellant and other interested persons before furnishing the information to the applicants under the Act. 12. In view of the legal position stated above, we do not find any ground to entertain the writ appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed. No costs.