All that does not depend on the NAME, but strictly how it functions, formed or financed in the context of section 2(h) of the Act.
It depends & differs case to case basis as per the respective State co-operative Acts.
Let me provide few links of co-op Banks having RTI pages, as they have the obligation under the Act as per their State co-op Acts:
Bhandara Urban Co-Operative Bank Ltd.
Right to Information Act
The Tripura State Cooperative Bank Limited (TSCB)
TRIPURA STATE CO_OPERATIVE BANK
Let show the reasons why the bodies were not covered under RTI, as in the examples stated by learned MANOJ B. PATEL
In the impugned order the Hon'ble Judges have clarified the reasons. Not only that, in a later judgement at J& K High Court, the same Order was not considered as that case was DIFFERENT
9. In the present case, admittedly, the share capital of the
petitioner bank was not provided by the Government nor it is
getting any financial assistance by the Government. No director of
the petitioner-Bank is appointed by the Government nor the
Government has any direct control or interference in functioning
and management of the Bank.]
The Learned Counsel for the Corporation cited
authority titled PD Urban Cooperative Bank Limited V/s State
Information Commissioner, AIR 2009 Bombay 75. This authority
is not of much use to the plea taken by the respondents as it
does not fit in the factual matrix of the complaint in hand. The
perusal of the record amply shows that the J&K Cooperative
Housing Corporation Limited is being controlled by the State
Government as it has received a share capital of Rs. 76.15 lakhs
from the State Government. The State Government also provides
guarantee against the loans borrowed by the Housing
Corporation. It has also provided equity in the form of share
capital from time to time.]
7………that the notification dated 22.9.2005 (Annexure-B)has s been issued under Section 2(b)(d) of the Ri] Act. Solely on the basis of supervision and contml 1w the Rrgist.rar of socieics; and the definition of ‘public Servant’ in the co-operative . societies and in the kanmtaka Lokavukia P, ;,. 1981 ‘i sOciety cannol be tenurd as ‘Public authority ‘. So as to include a society wit Jim (lie definition ul Jw ttnn ‘Public authority’, it should futhih] hit- condiliojys stipi:lainl iii sub—clause (d) of clause (Ii) of ‘r’tioiz 2 of the Ri’! Act. The decisions cited by (lie learnn coinist-l (or tl’r pc!itioner/society fully support the east ‘t 11w petitioner. 11w petitioner—society does not rijilul the icui’r ‘-oii’llu(nIs laid down in sub—clause (d) of clause b) cJ sectim 2 of the Act Therefore, the petitioner soeje1 is nut a ‘public authority’ under the provisions of the R’!’( Act, 1005. Hence, the directions issued by the Registrar
ķa the prtitioiicr/ society, by his communication dated 30.10.20W, by the respondent no.2 at Annexure- D are not hitiditig 011 the petitioner/society.
8 For the reasons stated supra, the petition is allowed holding that the petitioner-Society is not a public authority under the provisions of the Ri] Act, 2005.] →as the low Q embedded pdf converted to text, some words may not be readable.
On the contrary, in the following order, Hon'ble Delhi High Court has cited ditailed discussion on sec 2(h) & fined the petitioners (Co-op Socities)
Krishak Bharti Cooperative Ltd. vs Ramesh Chander Bawa on 14 May, 2010
60. For the aforementioned reasons, this Court finds no error having been committed by the CIC in its conclusion that KRIBHCO, NCCF and NAFED are „public authorities‟ within the meaning of Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act.
61. Each of the writ petitions is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 20,000/- which will be paid by each Petitioner to the respective Respondent within four weeks. ]
Not only that, even PSIC has stated that Co-operatives controlled by Govt officials can be under RTI, even without financial help from Govt.
Shri Vineet Malik Vs Cooperative Societies, Mohali :
Even though the respondent-society is a cooperative society registered under the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1963 and does not have any share capital of the Government nor government has given any financial assistance, the fact is that as on date the elected body has been dissolved and government has appointed its officials as Chairman and Members of the Governing Body of the respondent-society. In fact, therefore, the day to day management of the cooperative society is in the hands of officials of the government in the Department of Cooperative Societies............3. The fact that the entire Governing Body of the respondent-society consists of only Government officials it amounts to virtually control and management of the Cooperative Society within the meaning of Section 2(h)(d)(i) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. I have no hesitation in holding that as on date the respondent is a public authority under the RTI Act.]
Hence, Pl go through your State Co-op Act under which the bodies formed, & file RTI accordingly.
If you feel they satisfy the provisions u/s 2(h) & if they have not yet covered, proceed till IC level to bring them uner RTI.
R K Mishra