Central Information Commission
Charan Jeet Singh vs Registrar Of Companies, Delhi And ... on 23 June, 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
निकायत संख्या / Complaint No. CIC/ROCDH/C/2024/638984
Shri Charan Jeet Singh निकायतकताग /Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Registrar of Companies, Delhi and Haryana
Date of Hearing : 19.06.2025
Date of Decision : 19.06.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from complaint:
RTI application filed on : 13.06.2024
PIO replied on : 12.07.2024
First Appeal filed on : 31.07.2024
First Appellate Order on : 27.08.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : Nil
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 13.06.2024 seeking information on following points:-
"I am writing to reference a complaint I lodged on December 25 2023 which has been registered under the number 1000906252024 on February 15 2024 with the Registrar of Companies ROC This complaint included evidence of the use of two forged stamp papers during the registration of the Corporate Identification Number CIN U72200DL2013PTC262294 by the applicant company Digital Performance Media Pvt Ltd It has been confirmed that these two stamp papers were self printed by the company with the intent to deceive the ROC although the reason for this forgery remains unknown In my complaint I specifically requested that these two stamp papers be obtained from the company as they were initially submitted online during the registration process According to departmental regulations online submitted documents are presumed genuine unless there is a doubt or a complaint Once a question is raised it becomes the applicants responsibility to provide the original copies of these documents Based on my complaint No 100090625 and given the circumstances I trust that the department has ordered the applicant to submit the original copies of these two stamp papers Page 1 It is possible that the applicant has already submitted these original documents Under the Right to Information Act 2005 I hereby request the following 1 Copies of the orders issued to the applicant directing them to submit the original copies of the two aforementioned stamp papers 2 Certified attested by department copies of the original stamp papers submitted by the applicant."
The CPIO vide letter dated 12.07.2024 replied as under:-
"Para 1 Copies of L1 and L2 issued to the company is attached.
Para 2 The reply to the complaint as received from the company was forwarded by mail dated 23.04.2024 to the complainant. However, no such copies of the stamp paper, as desired by the applicant, were received from the company.
The above reply has been received from the concerned complaint cell of this office and accordingly CPIO has communicated the same to the applicant as it is."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 31.07.2024. The FAA vide order dated 27.08.2024 upheld the reply of CPIO.
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
Complainant: Present in person.
Respondent: Mr. P. Ravi Kiren, AROC- participated in the hearing.
The Complainant stated that the relevant information has not been furnished to him till date. He stated that he had sought information related to two forged stamp papers during the registration of the Corporate Identification Number CIN U72200DL2013PTC262294 by the applicant company Digital Performance Media Pvt Ltd but same has not been provided by the PIO.
The Respondent stated that the relevant information as available in their records has ben duly provided to the Complainant. He affirmed to check their official records again and offer inspection of records to the Complainant.
Page 2 Decision:
Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings during hearing observes that appropriate reply has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Therefore, no malafide can be ascribed over the conduct of the CPIO and thus, no penal action is warranted in the matter.
Commission further observes that the Complainant has chosen to approach the Commission with a Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act wherein the Commission is required to examine whether there was any deliberate denial of information by the public authority. It is worthwhile to place reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Chief Information Commissioner and Another v. State of Manipur and Anr. in Civil Appeal Nos. 10787-10788 of 2011 dated 12.12.2011, relevant extract whereof is as under:
"...28. The question which falls for decision in this case is the jurisdiction, if any, of the Information Commissioner under Section 18 in directing disclosure of information. In the impugned judgment of the Division Bench, the High Court held that the Chief Information Commissioner acted beyond his jurisdiction by passing the impugned decision dated 30th May, 2007 and 14th August, 2007. The Division Bench also held that under Section 18 of the Act the State Information Commissioner is not empowered to pass a direction to the State Information Officer for furnishing the information sought for by the complainant."
"30. It has been contended before us by the Respondent that under Section 18 of the Act the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission has no power to provide access to the information which has been requested for by any person but which has been denied to him. The only order which can be passed by the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, under Section 18 is an order of penalty provided under Section 20. However, before such order is passed the Commissioner must be satisfied that the conduct of the Information Officer was not bona fide."
31. We uphold the said contention and do not find any error in the impugned judgment of the High court whereby it has been held that the Commissioner while entertaining a complaint under Section 18 of the said Act has no jurisdiction to pass an order providing for access to the information."
Page 3 "37. We are of the view that Sections 18 and 19 of the Act serve two different purposes and lay down two different procedures and they provide two different remedies. One cannot be a Substitute for the other...."
Thus, the limited point to be adjudicated in complaint u/s 18 of RTI Act is whether the information was denied intentionally.
In the light of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that there is no malafide denial of information on the part of the concerned CPIO and hence no action is warranted under section 18 and 20 of the Act. No further action lies.
Complaint is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाभित सत्याभित प्रभत) 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)