Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Samir Sardana vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 17 December, 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/2022/645118

Shri SAMIR SARDANA                                         ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
                                 VERSUS/बनाम

PIO,                                                   ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Date of Hearing                       :   13.12.2024
Date of Decision                      :   13.12.2024
Chief Information Commissioner        :   Shri Heeralal Samariya

Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on          :       12.05.2022
PIO replied on                    :       10.06.2022
First Appeal filed on             :       21.06.2022
First Appellate Order on          :        - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on   :       19.08.2022

Information sought

and background of the case:

The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 12.05.2022 seeking information on following points:-
Statistics  PIO to state the number of online complaints received by NFRA in the least 4 years (year by year) o PIO to state the number of online complaints enquired into and dispoed by the NFRA in the least 4 years (year by year)  PIO to state the number of offline complaints received by NFRA in the least 4 years (year by year) o PIO to state the number of offline complaints enquired into and dispoed by the NFRA in the least 4 years (year by year)  PIO to state the number of complaints received by NFRA,vide CPGRAMS in the least 4 years (year by year) o PIO to state the number of CPGRAMS complaints enquired into and dispoed by the NFRA in the least 4 years (year by year) Inspection  PIO to allow the applicant to inspect the "Audit Files" or "Audit working paper files", submitted by the audit firms referred to in the heading "Recoveries below"
Page 1 Recoveries  PIO to provide the amount of penalty recovered by the NFRA w.r.t. the show cause notices issued for the following cases o Order Under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act in respect of the Show Cause Notice issued to CA Shrenik Baid (Membership No 103884) o Order Under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act in respect of the Show Cause Notice issued to CA Rukshad Daruvala (Membership No 111188) o Order under Section 132(4) of the Companies Act in respect of the Show Cause Notice Issued to CA Udayan Sen (Membership No 31220) Show Cause Notices  PIO to state the number of show cause notices issued by NFRA in the last 4 years (year and year),and the names of the persons to whom they were issued (besides the 3 show cause notices referred to in "Recoveries" above) AQRR  PIO to provide the following information w.r.t. AQR Report No. 1/2019 dated 12.12.2019,as under:
 Copy of letter/email dated 08.05.2019,which is the Reply of CA Udayan (under affidavit)Sent to NFRA letter dated 25.04.2019 and also sent via email by CA Shrenik Baid.
 And other related information."
The CPIO, National Financial Reporting Authority vide letter dated 10.06.2022 replied as under:-
Statistics The National Financial Reporting Authority (NFRA) was constituted on 01st October, 2018 by the Government of India under Sub Section 132(1) of the Companies Act, 2013.
Information sought by the applicant is not maintained in the format. As per the records available, the number of complaints received are 5 for FY 2019- 20, 33 for FY20-21, 39 for 21-22 and 1 for FY22-23 (as on 15.05.2022). The number of complaints disposed are I for FY 2019-20, 2 for FY20-21, 41 for 21- 22 and 1 for FY22-23 (as on 15.05.2022).

Inspection The Audit File may contain information of commercial confidence relating to the Audit Firms and the Audited organisations. Therefore, the same is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

Recoveries Nil Show Cause Notices The number of SCNs and names of the persons cannot be disclosed the disclosure of information would impede the process of investigation. Therefore the information is exempt under 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

Page 2 AQRR The above replies and submissions made by the Auditors may contain the information received in confidence from various entities, as well as commercial information of third party entities (auditee companies) Therefore, the same is exempt from disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act."

Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 21.06.2022. The FAA vide order dated 06.12.2024 as under :

2. Whereas the applicant vide his application dated 12.05.2022 had sought information regarding complaints in NFRA, inspection of "Audit Files" or " Audit working paper files", Recoveries, Show Cause Notices and AQRRs issued by NFRA.
3. Whereas the applicant has preferred an Appeal dated 21.06.2022 through email on the grounds that PIO has made an illegal rejection of information under section 8(1) (D) of the RTI Act and requested for FAA hearing.
4. Whereas the undersigned has gone through the case and also checked the records available in the file. Based on the same, the undersigned is of the opinion that the reply of CPIO for the RTI application of Shri Samir Sardana was in order. However, given the further developments, in addition to information furnished by CPIO to the applicant following is also informed:
(i) Show Cause Notices (SCN): Status of SCNs w.e.f. quarter ending June, 2023 has been decided to be put in public domain by NFRA on its website at the below link-
https://nfra.gov.in/status-of-show-cause-notices/
(ii) Recoveries: The three orders referred in the RTI application seeking information on penalty recovered have been stayed by court and hence could not be implemented. This fact is also stated in the face of these orden
(iii) AQRR: These matters are sub-judice in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court except as available in public domain on NFRA's website at the below link:
https://nfra.gov.in/document-category/audit-quality-review-aqr- report/
5. The undersigned had assumed the charge of Secretary, NFRA on 01.07.2024 who is also First Appellate Authority (FAA) in NFRA. The appeal of Shri Sahil Sardana dated 21.06.2022 appear to have been missed inadvertently due to a change of charge and present incumbent was not aware of the appeal. Now this appeal has been brought in the notice of the undersigned as FAA through the CIC hearing notice.

Accordingly, same is now being disposed of.

Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.

Page 3 Written submission dated 06.12.2024 has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Vidhu Sood, Secretary, NFRA participated in the hearing The Respondent stated that the Appellant has sought information regarding complaints in NFRA, inspection of Audit files or Audit working paper files, recoveries, show cause notices and AQRRs issued by NFRA. He stated that the information as available in their records has been duly provided to the Appellant. Furthermore, the status of show cause notices w.e.f. quarter ending June, 2023 has been decided to be put in public domain by NFRA on its website. As regards the AQRRs these matters are sub-judice in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court except as available in public domain on NFRA's website.
Decision:
At the outset, Commission directs the concerned PIO to furnish a copy of their latest written submission along with annexures if any, to the RTI Applicant, free of cost via speed-post and via e-mail, within 07 days from the date of receipt of this order and accordingly, compliance report be sent to the Commission.
Upon perusal of records and submissions made during hearing, it is noted that the Appellant's queries had been appropriately answered by concerned PIO. Furthermore, written submission filed by the Respondent is comprehensive and self-explanatory. Thus, information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly furnished to the Appellant. In the given circumstances, no further intervention of the Commission is warranted in this case under the RTI Act.
The appeal is disposed of 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 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)