Central Information Commission
Kinshuk Ganguly vs Central Vigilance Commission on 15 April, 2023
Author: Saroj Punhani
Bench: Saroj Punhani
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबागंगनाथमाग , मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
File No : CIC/CVCOM/A/2022/634637
KINSHUK GANGULY ......अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
CENTRAL VIGILANCE COMMISSION,
RTI CELL, SATARKTA BHAWAN,
G.P.O COMPLEX, BLOCK A, INA,
NEW DELHI-110023.
2. The CPIO,
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
RTI Cell, A Wing, Shastri Bhawan,
New Delhi-110001 .... ितवादीगण /Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing : 13/04/2023
Date of Decision : 13/04/2023
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Saroj Punhani
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 19/04/2022
CPIO replied on : 06/05/2022
First appeal filed on : 14/05/2022
First Appellate Authority's order : 03/06/2022
2nd Appeal/Complaint dated : 25/06/2022
1
Information sought:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 25.06.2022 seeking the following information:
"Sub: Request for Trade Agreements Between AHELI GROUP Or COMPANY and Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Register Of Company a Company Controlling body of GOVERNMENT OF India) Sources of Paid-up Share company and other Fund Inflow to all related companies name Start with AHELI MDA and ADA of company name start with AHELI including all details of AHELI name started with the company name changed or windup specially if any pharmaceutical company name start with AHELI.
Data and information along with the Business Agreements, fund inflow and outflow from Date of Incorporation, preliminary expenses paid to ROC as par the captioned subject matters of the details attached AHELI group of Companies required:
Following list of Directors / Management Staff agreement P.A_N . individual ITR filling /.Residencial address with the Over stated AHELI group of Companies required :
1.BAPI DAS -- AHELI FOREX &TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED
2.RAMA DAS - AHELI FOREX &TRAVEL PRIVATE LIMITED
3. Manik Ahluwalia- AHELI BE THERE FOUNDATION
4. Mat Bala- AHELI BE THERE FOUNDATION
5. PAGADALA RADHAKRISHNAN SURYAPRAKASAM- AHELI LIFESTYLE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED
6. PAVHITHRA AlISEITY- AHELI LIFESTYLE CLOTHING PRIVATE LE METED 2
7. JYOTHI RAGHURAM- AHELI LIFESTYLE CLOTHING PRIVATE LIMITED The CPIO furnished a reply to the appellant on 06.05.2022 stating as under:
"It is intimated that the information sought in the RTI Application pertains to Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Hence, your RTI application is being transferred to CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs u/s 6(3) of RTI Act, 2005 for appropriate action."
Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.05.2022. FAA's order, dated 03.06.2022, upheld the reply of CPIO, held as under:
"On perusal of records, it is found that custodian of the desired information is Ministry of Corporate Affairs. Therefore, the decision of the CPIO to transfer the RTI application of the appellant to Ministry of Corporate Affairs is in order. No further direction from the First Appellate Authority is required."
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal stating as under:
"Sub: CVC/RTIMPP/22/35/515018 --Respondent's Reply is not satisfactory. Praying for transparent reply in view of Public Interest legation during the COVID 19 (The Epidemic) period.
Request for Trade Agreements Between AHELI GROUP OF COMPANY and Ministry of Corporate Affairs (Register of Company a Company Controlling body of GOVERNMENT OF INDIA) _Sources of Paid-up Share capital and other fund inflow to all related companies name start with " AHELI" MOA and AOA of company name start with " AHELI" including all details of "AHELI " name started with the company name changed or Windup especially if any pharmaceutical company names start with "AHELI" Data and information along with the Business Agreements, fund inflow and outflow from Date of Incorporation, Preliminary expenses paid to ROC as per the captioned subject matters of the following AHELI group of Companies required as attached with First Appeal.
This type of companies have taken opportunities of COVID 19 PERIOD and the main focus must be strike off companies where the deal of unaccounted money used to increase individual net worth by not only tax revenue evasion of Central and Sate Government but made India a very much backward in context of global 3 economy as well as state based employment potentials in Private and Government Sector and Governments are compelling to subsidise all losses of revenue for the general and BPL people of India . That means this type of corruption in MCA lower level staffs were online usage of leave period of COVID 19 instigated corruption.
Requesting you with full investigation based on sample data. MCA data base for public information is not enough to fight and win against corruption. As Indian and patriot and in Government Service we must do some small good thinks which will built a nation and will give dividend to our next generation to create and maintain our values. It's the only way to go ahead before USA , China, Japan , UK etc."
Relevant Facts emerging during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Apul Jayaswal, CPIO, CVC present in person along with Sridhar. B Joint Director & CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs present through audio conference.
Apul Jayaswal, CPIO, CVC submitted that the Appellant was duly informed that his RTI Application has been transferred to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs.
Sridhar. B Joint Director & CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs submitted that the RTI Application was dealt with comprehensively by transferring it to all the concerned Registrar of Companies i.e Delhi, Mumbai, Hyderabad, Bangalore and West Bengal and each of the ROC offices have provided timely reply to the Appellant with extensive information on how he can access the information related to the entities referred to by him in the instant RTI Application from the public domain by accessing e-governance platform implemented by the MCA.
The Appellant at the outset stated that he has filed his written submissions with the Commission and wants the CVC to respond to the same. Upon being apprised that no such written submission is available on record, the Appellant seemingly ignored the observation of the Commission and continued to harp that he has filed written submissions. Despite repeated instance of asking the Appellant to state in brief the contents of his written submissions, he made statements that lacked clarity and coherence. The sum and substance of the Appellant's statements thereafter was in the form expressing rhetoric against the functioning 4 of the averred companies and wanted some joint investigation in the interest of the masses. Upon yet another question regarding the receipt of the reply sent by MCA, the Appellant hysterically answered "imagine all the CPIOs have disposed off the RTI Application".
Decision:
The Commission at the outset observes that the Appellant is gravely misguided about the mandate of the RTI Act as his grounds of Second Appeal do not ask for any relief permissible under the RTI Act.
Similarly, the Commission is at a loss to comprehend as to what case is being made against CVC in the instant matter since the information sought for in the RTI Application has nothing to do with CVC. For the said reason, the RTI Application of the Appellant filed with CVC does not even qualify under Section 6(1)(a) of the RTI Act and the CPIO, CVC was not mandated to transfer the RTI Application under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act. Yet as a benevolent step, the RTI Application was transferred to MCA and the CPIO, MCA took adequate steps to ensure that exhaustive replies are sent to the Appellant from all the concerned ROCs.
Having observed as above, the Commission does not find any case of obstruction to information caused to the Appellant in the instant matter. As for the insistence of the Appellant to "investigate" into the funds etc. of the averred companies, he is advised about the powers of the Commission under the RTI Act by relying on certain precedents of the superior Courts as under:
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors. (LPA No.785/2012) dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:
"6. ....proceedings under the RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication of disputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."(Emphasis Supplied) The aforesaid rationale finds resonance in another judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of Govt. of NCT of Delhi vs. Rajender Prasad (W.P.[C] 10676/2016) dated 30.11.2017 wherein it was held as under:
"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act and the powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act 5 strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes."
While, the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India vs Namit Sharma (Review Petition [C] No.2309 of 2012) dated 03.09.2013 observed as under:
"20. ...While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get informationin possession of a public authority...." (Emphasis Supplied) Having observed as above, no action is warranted in the matter.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly.
Saroj Punhani (सरोजपुनहािन) हािन) Information Commissioner (सूचनाआयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स#यािपत ित) (C.A. Joseph) Dy. Registrar 011-26179548/ [email protected] सी. ए. जोसेफ, उप-पंजीयक दनांक / 6