Central Information Commission
Rakesh Kumar Gupta vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 17 September, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.: CIC/MOCAF/A/2019/643355
In the matter of:
Rakesh Kumar Gupta
... Appellant
VS
1. Dy. Director & CPIO
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
5th Floor, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
DR. R P Road, New Delhi - 110001
2. Central Public Information Officer,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Budget Section,
Shastri Bhawan, DR. R P Road, New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/04/2019 CPIO replied on : 06/05/2019 First appeal filed on : 09/05/2019 First Appellate Authority order : 17/06/2019 Second appeal filed on : 19/06/2019 Date of Hearing : 16/09/2020 Date of Decision : 16/09/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Heard over phone
Respondent: Shri Chandan Kumar, Deputy Director & CPIO, heard over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide information in soft form (in DVD) related to filing fee increased in last 15 years. Related to Registrar of Companies/ MCA filing by 1 Companies under Companies Act. The same should include all the files / records in which fees increase / penalty increase / delay filing fee are discussed.
2. Provide information about the procedure/ method made by Ministry of Corporate affairs in the last five years to provide simple method of closing companies (strike off the company from ROC records.)
3. Whether statement of collection of fees and expenses by MCA (as enclosed to the RTI application and referred to in Point 1) is correct. If not, kindly provide correct details.
4. Certain new forms have been introduced in the last one year, like KYC, Form22, MSME(1), etc. Provide rational for introduction of the said forms.
5. Provide file number (with the section dealing the same) in which representation from the undersigned as well from other public were kept, on the subjects like a) ROC filing fee should be in comparison to actual expenses; b) Penal fee should be radically reduced.
6. And other related information.
Grounds for Second appeal The CPIO has denied providing the information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not supplied to him particularly on points no. 5, and 7.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of his reply dated 06.05.2019. Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that points 1-4 have been already decided by the Commission in File no. CIC/MOCAF/A/2019/640247 on 16.09.2020. Hence, no further action is warranted on these points.2
With regard to points no. 5, 6, 8 & 9, the reply of the CPIO is apt. With regard to point no. 7, the reply of the CPIO is not proper as the appellant had sought very specific information regarding the norms and procedures adopted by MCA for dealing with suggestions. The CPIO is directed to provide complete information to the appellant if such information is available with them and in case there is no such information, a categorical reply should be given.
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on point no. 7 within a period of 07 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आय! ु त) Authenticated true copy (अ भ मा णत स या पत त) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3