Central Information Commission
Bhavesh D Narumalani vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 25 November, 2024
Author: Heeralal Samariya
Bench: Heeralal Samariya
के न्द्रीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग, मुननरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई दिल्ली, New Delhi - 110067
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2023/650493
Shri Bhavesh D Narumalani ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 21.11.2024
Date of Decision : 21.11.2024
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 26.07.2023
PIO replied on : 22.08.2023
First Appeal filed on : 29.08.2023
First Appellate Order on : 14.09.2023
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 30.10.2023
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 26.07.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
1. "I am the Director and shareholder of a company named Therm Flow Engineers Pvt Ltd. which is not operational and totally defunct since 2010 and is being used as a shell company by other Directors for several fraudulent activities since 2010.
2. Vide Complaint dt. 28/10/2020 bearing Letter No. BDN/MCA/MOF/277 addressed to Mrs Nirmala Sitharaman - Hon'ble Minister of Corporate Affairs, I had filed a whistleblower complaint titled: Fraudulent Activities in Therm Flow Engineers Pvt Ltd - A shell Company.
3. As per information obtained from previous RTI Applications, said letter was transferred to R and I section of MCA vide dy. no. 282 dt. 6.11.2020 of the office of Hon'ble Minister of Corporate Affairs. R and I section forwarded it to OSD, DGCOA, Kota House vide dy.no. 7432 dated 9.11.2020 for further necessary action.
4. The Inward number of office of Director General (Corporate Affairs) for my above mentioned complaint letter dt. 28/10/2020 was 1543918 dt. 11.11.2020. in this regard, reply dt 14.12.2020 of CPIO, DGCOA is enclosed as supporting document.
5. In paragraphs 16 and 24 of the said complaint dt. 28/10/2020, I had also shared the details (including Inward Numbers) of my earlier complaints dt 13/11/2017 and 9/8/2018 addressed to Mr P. P Chaudhary, the then Minister of State, Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
6. Hence, under the provisions of RTI act, I request you to provide me the following information:Page 1 of 3
a) The date on which an investigating officer/inspector was appointed by Central Government/Ministry of Corporate Affairs for conducting an investigation into the affairs of Therm Flow Engineers Pvt Ltd.
b) The section number of Companies Act 2013 under which such investigating officer /inspector was appointed by the central government i.e. section no.
210 or section no. 212 or any other section as applicable."
The CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs vide letter dated 22.08.2023 replied as under:-
"For the point 1 & 2 it is to inform that as per the information shown to the CPIO it is to state that proceedings are under process."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 29.08.2023. The FAA vide order dated 14.09.2023 stated as under:-
"........it observed that the information is to be provided categorically, therefore the appeal has been considered and CPIO is directed to provide the information specifically requested at (a) & (b) above with in 15 days from today. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed off vide today order dated 14.09.2023."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the non-compliance of FAO, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission has been submitted by the Respondent during the course of hearing, with an attached report dated 13.11.2024 which reveals that ROC, Ahmedabad vide email dated 14.11.2024 has stated that no Inquiry/Inspection/Investigation was ordered/pending against Therm Flow Engineers Private Limited.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through video conference Respondent: Shri Sandeep Sindhu - Section Officer was present during hearing. The Appellant contended that he is not satisfied with the information furnished by the Respondent because the relevant attachment with the reply has not been sent to him.
The Respondent reiterated the PIO's reply and placed reliance on the written submission dated mentioned hereinabove stating that information available on record has been duly provided to the Appellant, in terms of the provisions of the RTI Act.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and after hearing the averments of both parties, the Commission hereby directs the Respondent to ensure that complete written submission with the report dated 13.11.2024 as submitted before the Commission, should be sent to the Appellant, within two weeks of receipt of this order, through speed post. The Respondent shall submit a compliance report in this regard before the Commission, within one week thereafter. Since appropriate response has already Page 2 of 3 been sent by the Respondent, in consonance with the provisions of the RTI Act, no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the Act. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)