Central Information Commission
Mr.K K Misra vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 20 September, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan,
Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi110066
Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931
Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002005
Dated: 20.09.2013
Name of Appellant : Shri K.K. Mishra
Name of Respondent : Office of the Registrar of Companies,
Karnataka, Bangalore.
Date of Hearing : 04.07.2013
ORDER
Shri K.K. Mishra, hereinafter called the appellant has filed the present appeal dated 15.5.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Office of the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, Bangalore for not providing certified copies of documents as sought for in response to his RTI application dated 16.1.2012. The matter was scheduled for hearing through videoconferencing. The appellant was present whereas the respondent were represented by Shri A. Sehar Ponraj, Dy. Registrar of Companies/CPIO at NIC Videoconferencing Facility Centre, Bangalore.
2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 16.1.2012 sought certified copies in respect of M/s. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprises Ltd., Bangalore showing composition of Board of Directors and Members/ Shareholders of the Company as filed by the Company from time to time with ROC, Karnataka Bangalore from 1.1.2000 onwards. The CPIO vide letter No. ROCB/AHN/ JTA/RTI/2011 dated 3.2.2012 relied upon the earlier decisions of 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002005 the Commission in file no. CIC/MA/A2008/00062 order dated 31.3.2008 wherein it was held as under:
""the Registrar of Companies has already put in place system for disclosure of information including the procedure for payment of cost for providing the information. There is no denial of information to the applicant. There is, therefore, no reason why the procedure of the Registrar of Companies in respect of disclosure of information should not be adhered to and followed. As the working of the Office of Registrar of Companies is transparent in so far as public activities are concerned, there is no justification for invoking the cost and fee rules as prescribed under the RTI Act. In case, however, there is any hindrance in providing access to the documents which are expected to be in the public domain, the provisions of the RTI Act could be invoked. In view of this, there is no justification for not respecting the fee and cost rules of the Registrar of Companies as per the relevant provisions under Section 610 of the Companies Act".
The CPIO informed the appellant that in case he require any further information in respect of the said Company, it is available in the public domain and the appellant was advised to follow the procedure as laid down u/s 610 of the Companies Act, 1956.
3. However, aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant preferred first appeal on 25.2.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. ROCB/AHN/JTA/RTI-Appeal/2012/871 dated 11.4.2012 comprehensively explained the procedure for inspection and obtaining certified copies of the documents filed by the respective companies under the provisions of Section 610(1(a), 610(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 1956. The FAA advised the appellant to go through Ministry of Corporate Affairs website www.mca.gov.in under the link MCA21-Service Transformation. In case the appellant needed any further details on any rules, regulation, procedures and details e.g. website, the CPIO was accordingly directed to furnish the same to the appellant.
3 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/0020054. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that for getting the information, he has to first register himself before he can access the information and thereafter pay Rs. 50 for viewing the information for three hours. Whereas, under RTI Rules, the inspection of documents is free for first hour and thereafter the charges are Rs. 5 for every 15 minutes. The appellant states that he paid Rs. 50 through internet banking, but thereafter there were no instructions on the website as to how to access the information required. During the hearing the FAA submits that a citizen can also apply through the net for obtaining certified copies. But the appellant contests that according to the information on net, the fee payable is Rs. 25 per page as against Rs. 2 per page prescribed under RTI Rules. The appellant contests that it would not be appropriate for the CIC to allow ROC to charge such exorbitant rates for information which is in direct conflict with the provisions of the RTI Act and Rules. The appellant states during that hearing that in the above said order specifically mentioned that in case of hindrance in providing access to the documents, the provisions of the RTI Act could be invoked. The respondent CPIO on the other hand states that in case the appellant is not able to access the information from the website of the ROC, he can approach the Help Desk which is placed in their Office to assist the people to access information on the website.
5. In this connection, the High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 1.6.2012 in W.P. (c) 11271/ 2009 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & another held "
34. The mere prescription of a higher charge in the other statutory mechanism (in this case section 610 of the Companies Act), than that prescribed under the RTI Act does not make any difference whatsoever. The right available to any person to seek inspection/copies of documents under section 610 of the Companies Act is governed by the Companies 4 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002005 (Central Government) General Rules & Forms, 1956, which are statutory rules and prescribe the fees for inspection of documents etc. in Rule 21A. The said rules being statutory in nature and specific in their application, do not get overridden by the rules framed under the RTI Act with regard to prescription of fee for supply of information, which is general in nature, and apply to all kinds of applications made under the RTI Act to seek information. It would also be complete waste of funds to require the creation and maintenance of two parallel machineries by the ROC - one under section 610 of the Companies Act, and the other under the RTI Act to provide the same information to an applicant. It would lead to unnecessary and avoidable duplication of work and consequent expenditure.
35. The right to information is required to be balanced with the need to optimize use of limited fiscal resources. In this context I may refer to the relevant extract of preamble to the RTI Act which, inter alia, provides.......... ....................................................................................................................................................................................... .................................
41. Firstly, I may notice that I do not find anything inconsistent between the scheme provided u/s 610 of the Companies Act and the provisions of the RTI Act. Merely because a different charge is collected for providing information under Section 610 of the Companies Act than that prescribed as the fee for providing information under the RTI 5 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002005 Act does not lead to an inconsistency in the provisions of these two enactments. Even otherwise, the provisions of the RTI Act would not override the provision contained in Section 610 of the Companies Act. Section 610 of the Companies Act is an earlier piece of legislation. The said provision was introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 at the time of its enactment in the year 1956 itself. On the other hand, the RTI Act is a much later enactment, enacted in the year 2005. The RTI Act is a general law/enactment which deals with the right of a citizen to access information available with a public authority, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed in the said Act. On the other hand, Section 610 of the Companies Act is a piece of special legislation, which deals specifically with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records i.e. information from the ROC. Therefore, the later general law cannot be read or understood to have abrogated the earlier special law."
6. In the said Judgement, the Hon'ble High Court has dealt with this issue at length and the contention of the appellant in the present appeal regarding prescribing different fees under the two Acts i.e, RTI Act 2005 and Companies Act 1956 has also been dealt with earlier. In view of the above, the Commission finds no reason to disagree with the reply of the respondent.
The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh) 6 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002005 Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar 7 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/002005 Address of the parties:
Shri K.K. Mishra, #536, 4th Cross Road, HAL II Stage, Indiranagar, Bangalore-560008.
The Dy. Registrar of Companies/CPIO, Office of the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, II Floor, "E" Wing, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034 The Registrar of Companies/FAA, Office of the Registrar of Companies, Karnataka, II Floor, "E" Wing, Kendriya Sadan, Koramangala, Bangalore-560034