JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned Counsel for petitioners and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2. 2. Vide order dated 07.07.2011, notices were issued to the respondents. Sri Shikhar Anand has filed Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent nos. 1 and 2 whereas the respondent no. 3 has sent a letter dated 07.01.2019 stating therein that he had moved an application under the provisions of Right to Information Act for certain information but now he has no requirement for such information. 3. Petitioners have approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the correctness and validity of the order dated 06.06.2011 passed by the State Information Commissioner, Lucknow in Complaint Case No. S-3-1088 C/2009, Vidya Ram vs. General Manager, Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Rampur, whereby the petitioner no. 2, who is the General Manager of the Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Bilapur, District Rampur, has been directed to provide information to the respondent no. 3 (Vidya Ram) within 20 days and explain as to why penal proceedings may not be initiated under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 for not providing information as sought for by the respondent no. 3. 4. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 3 had moved an application on 02.02.2009 under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act for certain information pertaining to Rudra Bilas Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd [petitioner no. 1 herein]. On receipt of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner vide letter dated 22.07.2009, had informed the respondent no. 3 that the information as sought for by him could not be provided in view of the order dated 03.09.2008 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 45384 of 2008. Thereafter a complaint was filed by the respondent no. 3 before the State Information Commissioner, Lucknow (respondent no. 1) alleging that the information as sought for by him has not been provided. The petitioner no. 2 has submitted reply raising preliminary objection that the petitioner no. 1 is not a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, therefore, he is not legally bound to furnish the information. 5. It is asserted that the State Information Commissioner on the complaint of the respondent no. The petitioner no. 2 has submitted reply raising preliminary objection that the petitioner no. 1 is not a public authority as defined under Section 2 (h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005, therefore, he is not legally bound to furnish the information. 5. It is asserted that the State Information Commissioner on the complaint of the respondent no. 3, by the impugned order dated 6.6.2011 directed the petitioner no. 2 to provide the information as sought by the respondent no. 3 within 20 days and explain by the next date as to why penal proceedings may not be initiated under Section 20 of the Right to Information Act for not providing the information as sought by the respondent no. 3. This was done without taking into consideration the objections raised by the petitioners. 6. Submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioner no. 1 is a Co-operative Society registered under the provisions of U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. As per the bye-laws the said society is neither an instrumentality or agency of the State Government, but infact is purely a private entity having no pervasive control or financial aid of the Government. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed by any of the respondents rebutting the averments made in the writ petition. However, on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 and 2 while defending the order impugned in the writ petition, it has been asserted that the petitioner no. 1 is a society and as such it falls within the ambit of Article 12 of the Constitution being an instrumentality of the State. 8. Rules relating to furnish information to citizens who desire it were enacted by the Central Government under the appellation The Right to Information Act, 2005. Under-section 6 of the Right to Information Act, request for obtaining information can be made to a public authority and the said authority has been defined under Section 2 (h) of the said Act, which reads 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 appropriate Government, and includes any:- (i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed. (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 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." 9. The Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Limited vs. Shatrughan Nishad, AIR 2003 SC 4531 has held that a co-operative sugar mill is neither an instrumentality nor agency of Government, therefore, it cannot be said to be an authority and it is not an State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 10. In Thalappalam Ser. Cooperative Bank Ltd. and Others vs. State of Kerala and Others, 2013 (6) AWC 6215 (SC) the question before the Apex Court was whether a co-operative society registered under the Kerala Cooperative Societies Act falls within the definition of "public authority" under Section 2(h) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and be bound by the obligations sought for by a citizen under the R.T.I. Act. The Apex Court after considering various judgment held that such societies are not public authorities and, hence, not legally obliged to furnish any information sought for by a citizen under the R.T.I. Act. However, State Information Commissioner can examine the same and find out whether the Society in question satisfies the test of control or funds provided by the State Government. 11. In the case at hand, it is not in dispute that on the complaint of respondent no. 3 seeking certain information, the petitioners raised a preliminary objection before the Information Commissioner to the effect that the petitioners did not come within the ambit of Right to Information Act, 2005 as the petitioner no. 1 is not a public authority within the definition of public authority. It appears that the respondent no. 2 without disposing of the objection so raised by the petitioners passed the order impugned, which is per se bad in law. It was the onerous duty of the State Information Commissioner to consider the objection in the light of the provisions of the Act and the settled proposition of law, referred to above. It may be added that respondent no. It was the onerous duty of the State Information Commissioner to consider the objection in the light of the provisions of the Act and the settled proposition of law, referred to above. It may be added that respondent no. 3 who had sought the information has sent a letter, which is on record, that he is no more interested in getting the information. 12. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 6.6.2011 passed by the respondent no. 2 is hereby set aside. Parties to bear their own costs.