Central Information Commission
Gulshan Kushwah vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 28 May, 2025
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/2024/616164.
Shri Gulshan Kushwah ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 26.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19.02.2024
PIO replied on : 21.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 22.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : 26.02.2024
2 Appeal/complaint received on
nd : 22.04.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 19.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"It has been confirmed that my spouse is working as an employee for AG ENVIRO INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED for Jhansi Nagar Nigam Operations Project and I am requesting details of my spouse for providing details to Court for Maintenance case under High Court (details attached) as per guidance provided by Supreme court judgement that Husband is having right to get details of spouse salary to provide right amount of Maintenance."
The CPIO vide letter dated 21.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: the employees name, contract or permanent, designation/post, joining, tenure, salary slip, payment mode of salary etc are not required to be filed with this office as per Companies Act, 2003.
The applicant can visit MCA website www.mca.gov.in for Companies Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2024. The FAA, Dy. ROC, Mumbai vide order dated 26.02.2024 stated as under:-
"Reply: The aforesaid matter has been arisen out of appeal dated 22.02.2024 filed by the appellant against the CPIO's reply dated 21.02.2024. On perusal of the original Page 1 of 3 application received on dated 19.02.2024, it is observed that the CPIO has provided the reply to the applicant. The reply of the CPIO appears to be satisfactory. The appeal is disposed off accordingly."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 13.05.2025 has been received from the Appellant reiterating his queries seeking offer letter, ID card, designation, employee email id, gross or net taxable income of his wife.
The Respondent has also submitted written submission dated 19.05.2025 reiterating the PIO's reply and the FAA's order stating that response from available records has been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Appellant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri Agja Pranav Kumar - Asstt. ROC, Mumbai was heard through audio conference during hearing Both parties are heard and submitted their respective contentions as noted hereinabove. The Appellant contended that information sought by him has been unfairly denied by the Respondent and sought that information should be provided to him. Respondent on the other reiterated that since such information is not available in their records, the same could not be furnished to the Appellant.
Decision:
Upon perusal of records of the case and hearing averments of the parties, the Commission is of the considered view that the Respondent has furnished accurate response, since the information sought by the Appellant was never held in their custody. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed this aspect in the following decisions of dated 09.08.2011 in the case titled: Central Board Of Secondary Education & Anr. vs Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. discussed this aspect in the following words:
".. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of `information' and `right to information' under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. But 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. A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' Page 2 of 3 in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act. Emphasis supplied Therefore, it is held that the Respondent has sent an appropriate response to the Appellant, denying access to information which is not held by it. The response being legally accurate is thus upheld. The instant case warrants no further intervention under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed off with no further direction.
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)