Central Information Commission
Mohit vs Registrar Of Companies, Delhi And ... on 30 November, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/ROCDH/A/2020/672584
In the matter of:
Mohit
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Office of Registrar of Companies,
Fourth Floor, IFCI Tower,
61-Nehru Place,
New Delhi 110019
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 02/03/2020 CPIO replied on : 23/03/2020, 18/05/2020 First appeal filed on : 24/03/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 08/05/2020 Second Appeal Filed on : 02/06/2020 Date of Hearing : 30/11/2021 Date of Decision : 30/11/2021 The following were present: Appellant : Not present
Respondent: Sweety Khattar Kumar, AROC and CPIO, present over VC at CIC Information Sought:
The Appellant has stated that the there were multiple irregularities in the public issues of the companies whose CIN numbers have been given in the RTI application, which varied from fraudulent incorporation to fake directors as recorded in Appeal no.14/2000 by the Securities Appellate Tribunal. L65910HR1990PLC030944 and L74899DL1994PLC062366 are still active on BSE vide scrip codes 530389 & 530441. L65910HR1990PLC030944 was listed at S.no 231 against PAN no AAACG1103H in list of 331 suspected shell entities 1 included in letter no F. No. 03/73/2017-CL-II dated 09 June 2017. In this regard appellant has sought the following information:
1. The scrutinizer appointed by the companies for conduct of ballot for the AGMs held in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
2. The electronic voting system (CDSL / NSDL / Karvy etc. or some fraudster sing in Rawalpindi) used for conduct of ballot for the AGMs held in the years 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018.
3. Provide application details filed by the companies seeking extension for holding of AGM (for the year 2019) beyond the ordinarily permitted last date of 30 September 2019.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The notice of hearing sent to the appellant was returned undelivered on 19.11.2021 with remarks "Item Returned No such Address".
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was given vide letter dated 23.03.2020 and 18.05.2020. She further submitted that under the Companies Act, 2013 the companies are not bound to submit any document as sought by the appellant as these are not mandatory.
Observations:
OO Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 23.03.2020 replied to the applicant in respect of points no. 1 & 2, in which he stated that no such information is maintained by their office and therefore, was not available with the CPIO. The CPIO can provide only that information which is part of the record. In respect of point no.3, the CPIO replied that as per information provided by the concerned Cell, no application for extension of time for holding AGM for the year ending 31.03.2019 had been received by their office from such companies. In respect of point no. 4 also the CPIO replied that no information is available. The FAA vide order dated 08.05.2020 held that the CPIO should give the details from where the appellant can access 2 the information. The CPIO thereafter, vide letter dated 18.05.2020 provided a revised reply on points no. 1 & 2 in compliance with the FAA's order.
The Commission could not find any deficiency in the reply given by the CPIO. In re Decision:
In view of the above observations, there is no scope for providing any relief to the appellant.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
3