Central Information Commission
Mr.R Venkatesh vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 25 June, 2013
Central Information Commission
Room No. 305 B- Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,
Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi - 110066
Case No. CIC/SS/A/12/002113
Dated: 25. 6.2013
Name of the Appellant: R. Venkatesh (not present for the hearing)
Name of the Public Authority: Registrar of Companies, Coimbatore
Represented by: Dr. M.M Cholan (Registrar of
Comapnies)
Date of hearing: 18.3.2013
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an RTI application dated 22.2.2012 addressed to ROC, Coimbatore wherein he sought some details regarding the Companies that got registereed in the Calender year 2011.
2. The CPIO vide informed the appellant vide reply dated 6.3.2012 that:
"With reference to your letter cited, informing that you are in need of the following details of the companies that got registered in the calender year 2011, (1) Name of the Comapny, (2) Postal Address of the Company, (3) Name of the Managing Director, (4) e-mail ID and (5) Telephone numbers, I have to state that the structured information required by you is not held by this office as record of information cannot be created in accorsance with your requirements. Further, it does not seem that providing structured information in the manneer required by you will serve public interest.
However you are advised to cause inspection oft the documents filed by any company in physical form available at this office and inelectronic form available on MCA Portal (www.mca.gov.in) by payment of fee of Rs 50, in the manner prescribed on the portal by logging in to the MCA Portal, to acces the desired information."
3. However, not satisfied, the appellant filed first appeal dated 28.3.2012 . The first appellate authority disposed off the said appeal vide order dated 17.4.2012 wherein he concuured with the views of the CPIO.
4. The respondent submits vide his written submissions that access to information held in the registry is already facilitated under sec 610 of the Companies Act 1956 since the year 1956, further that access to information held in the electronic registry (u/s 610-B) is already facilitated since the year 2006.
5. In the case of Registrar of Companies Vs Dharmendra Garg in W.P. (C) 11271/2009 Decided On: 01.06.2012 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held:
"33. From the above, it appears that the expression 'held by' or 'under the control of any public authority', in relation to 'information', means that information which is held by the public authority under its control to the exclusion of others. It cannot mean that information which the public authority has already 'let go', i.e. shared generally with the citizens, and also that information, in respect of which there is a statutory mechanism evolved, (independent of the RTI Act) which obliges the public authority to share the same with the citizenry by following the prescribed procedure, and upon fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. This is so, because in respect of such information, which the public authority is statutorily obliged to disseminate, it cannot be said that the public authority 'holds' or 'controls' the same. There is no exclusivity in such holding or control. In fact, the control vests in the seeker of the information who has only to operate the statutorily prescribed mechanism to access the information. It is not this kind of information, which appears to fall within the meaning of the expression 'right to information', as the information in relation to which the 'right to information' is specifically conferred by the RTI Act is that information which "is held by or under the control of any public authority".
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 (Central Government's) 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 public 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."
6. In the present appeal the appellant has sought information regarding Companies registered in a particular year. In view of the submissions of the appellant that no such data is maintained in this particular format and that the information sought can be accessed under section 610 of the Comapnies Act, the Commission is of the view that the desired information sought by the appellant is not held exclusively and is already under the public domain.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Sushma Singh Information Commissioner Authenticated True Copy:
(DC Singh) Deputy Registrar Name & Address of Parties:
1. Appellant:
R. Venkatesh 256, 3rd Street, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore (T.N) - 641 012
2. Public Information Officer & Asst. Registrar of Companies Stock Exchange building, II Floor, 683 Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641 005
3. First Appellate Authority & Registrar of Companies Stock Exchange building, II Floor, 683 Trichy Road, Singanallur, Coimbatore - 641 005