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/2022/645113
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 : 10.05.2022
PIO replied on : 13.05.2022
First Appeal filed on : 02.07.2022
First Appellate Order on : - -
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 25.08.2022
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 10.05.2022 seeking information on following points:-
Ban on Audit Firms PIO to state the names of the audit firms, for which the MCA, has made recommendations, for a ban, in the last 7 years, as under: o Year, Names of the audit firms, Years for which ban sought PIO to state the names of the audit firms, for which the NCLT has, based on the recommendations of MCA, passed ban orders on audit firms, for the last 7 years, as under:
o Year, Names of the audit firms, Years for which ban declared SFIO Report PIO to provide a copy of the SFIO report submitted to the MCA on the frauds and irregularities in ILFS, titled as "Investigation Report of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd.
NCLT Page 1 PIO to state the NCLT petition number vide which MCA filed a petition with NCLT for seeking removal of the existing Statutory Auditors of IL&FS Financial Services Ltd.(IFIN) and further seeking a ban on appointment of Deloitte Haskins &Sells LLP and BSR & Associates LLP, along with their engagement partners for IL&FS, for a period of 5 year o PIO to provide a copy (preferably e-copy) of the said petition filed by the MCA PIO To state the NCLT order number vide which Deloitte challenged the ban order on the audit services of the firm, arising out of the ILFS fraud o PIO to provide a copy (preferably e-copy) of the petition filed by Deloitte with NCLT challenging the audit ban Bombay High Court PIO to provide the case reference number of the Bombay High Court order striking down the ban on Deloitte (as imposed by MCA and NCLT) And other related information."
The CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi transferred the instant RTI Application to Director general of Corporate Affairs vide letter dated 13.05.2022 replied as under:-
"The undersigned is to forward herewith an RTI application dated Nil of Sh. Samir Sardana, received in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs on 13.05.2022, for action as appropriate in the matter.
2. In case the information sought or any part thereof pertains to other CPIO(s)/Public Authority, the application may be dealt with as per the provision of the Act."
The CPIO, Director General of Corporate Affairs furnished reply vide letter dated 22.07.2022 replied as under:
I am to refer to your mail dated 15.07.2022 in respect of this office reply dated 17.06.2022 to your RTI Application which has been forwarded to Legal Cell of the Ministry for providing the desired information with the remark "I have still not received the PIO Reply." In this regard, I am to state that the undersigned who has signed the letter is the CPIO in this office.
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 02.07.2022 which was not adjudicated by the FAA as per available records.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Written submission has been received from Section Officer, CPIO, O/o DGCoA and same has been taken on record. The relevant extract whereof is as under :
Page 2 In this regard, it is submitted that as per attachment to the hearing notice of CIC the then CPIO vide letter No. 6/72/2022/CL-II dated 17.06.2022 had forwarded the RTI application to legal Cell to furnish the reply directly to appellant. Accordingly, the CPIO of DGCoA, vide letter No. CL-II-06/21/2023-O/o DGCoA MCA dated 29.11.2024 has requested Legal Cell to provide/furnish the copy of reply provided to appellant for he original RTI application.. The CPIO Legal Cell has returned the letter with the remarks that : 1.
Upon a perusal of the records, it appears that the O/o DGCoA letter dated 17.06.2022 was not received by the undersigned. 2. The RTI application might pertain to SFIO, ICAI and NFRA section not legal section. Accordingly, this letter is returned in original with its enclosures.
However, as per the record of dispatch register of O/o DGCoA, the letter was handed over to legal section (copy attached). Further, vide letter No. CL-II-06/21/2023-O/o DGCoA-MCA dated 04.12.2024 the CPIO of Legal Cell was requested to make it convenient to appear/attend the CIC hearing on 13.12.2024 at 11:50 AM.
Further, based on the remarks of legal cell, vide letter No. CL-II- 06/21/2023-O/o DGCoA-MCA dated 06.12.2024 the CPIO's of SFIO, ICAI and NFRA are requested to furnished the information sought in 2nd appeal. However, NFRA vide letter No. NF- 12044/3/2021 dated 11.12.2024 has stated that the matter does not pertain to NFRA and SFIO furnished the information, mentioned in below table S.No. 2. The reply of ICAI is awaited.
PIO Reply :
1. The CPIO can give information which is held by the Public Authority or Held under his control. The CPIO is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to solve the problem raised by the applicant or to furnish replies to hypothetical questions. Only such information can be provided under the RTI Act, 2005 which already exists with the Public Authority. As such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding Audit Firms.
2. As such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding SFIO Report. A copy of letter No. CL-II06/21/2023-O/o GCoA-MCA dated 06.12.2024 has been forwarded the CPIO's of SFIO to furnished the information. In response, SFIO vide email dated 12.12.2024 has stated that in the matter of IL&FS Financial Services Limited (IFIN), the investigation was completed by SFIO and investigation report was submitted to MCA vide letter dated 28.05.2019 and thereafter, Prosecution Sanction received vide letter dated 29.05.2019.
3. As such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding NCLT petitions
4. As such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding Bombay High Court order Page 3
5. As such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding Supreme Court
6. ROC, Hyderabad vide email dated 12.12.2024 submitted that there is no such prosecution filed by this office against the company Satyam. It is also further submitted that this office files the prosecutions under the violations of Companies Act, 2013 before the Hon'ble Special Economic Offences Court, Hyderabad and not before the Special CBI Court. Therefore, this office has no reference for providing the case number of the above stated order of the Hon'ble Sessions Court and the date of the order etc., as desired.
7. As such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding report submitted by the MCA panel.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Mr. Sandeep Sindhu, section Officer, O/o DGCoA- participated in the hearing.
The Respondent reiterated the averments made in their written submission and stated that the relevant information from their official record has been duly provided to the Appellant. He stated that as such O/o DGCoA does not have any information regarding Audit Firms. He further submitted that as regards the SFIO Report, the SFIO vide email dated 12.12.2024 has stated that in the matter of IL&FS Financial Services Limited (IFIN), the investigation was completed by SFIO and investigation report was submitted to MCA vide letter dated 28.05.2019 and thereafter, Prosecution Sanction received vide letter dated 29.05.2019.
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) Page 4 Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)