Central Information Commission
Gulshan Kushwah vs Registrar Of Companies, Mumbai on 28 May, 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/ROCMU/C/2024/626194
Shri Gulshan Kushwah .निकायतकताग/Complainant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Registrar of Companies, Mumbai ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 26.05.2025
Date of Decision : 26.05.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 21.02.2024
PIO replied on : 22.02.2024
First Appeal filed on : 22.02.2024
First Appellate Order on : NA
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 21.06.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Complainant filed an RTI application dated 21.02.2024 seeking information on the following points:-
"It has been confirmed that my spouse is working as an employee for AG ENVIRO INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED subsidiary of Antony Waste Handling Cell for Jhansi Nagar Nigam Operations Project and I am requesting details of my spouse for providing details to Court for Maintenance case under High Court Case number CRLR/6579/2023 as per guidance provided by Central Information Commission judgement that Husband is having right to get details of spouse salary to provide right amount of Maintenance.
Wife income details have to be provided to the concerned husband for seeking directions in maintenance crpc 125 cases Please provide generic details of net income/taxable income. Details required of Akanksha Kushwaha (or Pinki Kushwaha) D/O of Om Prakash Kushwaha Address 2006 Suje Khaa Khidki Jhansi pin 284002, PAN DVQPK2237F Refer attached Judgement copy of RTI through which details were provided. Details required of Akanksha Kushwaha (or Pinki Kushwaha) D/O of Om Prakash Kushwaha, Address 2006 Suje Khaa Khidki Jhansi pin 284002, PAN DVQPK2237F
1. Designation/Post
2. Date of joining
3. Total Tenure of employee or last date of work
4. Salary and Mode of Payment (Cash/Bank Transfer)"Page 1 of 3
The CPIO vide letter dated 22.02.2024 replied as under:-
"Reply: this authority has already replied in your RTI application no. ROCMU/R/T/24/00014 received on 19.02.2024 and disposed 21.02.2024. The CIC said, an applicant or appellant repeating the RTI application or appeal either once or multiple times, suppressing the fact of earlier application and receipt of the answer, the CPIO of the public authority may reject it forthwith after intimating it along with reasons. Hence CPIO cannot be provided sought information. However, the employees designation joining tenure or salary payment mode etc are not required to be filed with this office as per Companies Act, 2003. The applicant can visit MCA website www.mca.gov.in for Companies Act."
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Complainant filed a First Appeal dated 22.02.2024. The FAA vide order dated 26.02.2024 held as under:-
"Reply: The aforesaid matter has been arisen out of appeal dated 22.02.2024 filed by the appellant against the CPIO's reply dated 22.02.2024. On perusal of the original application received on dated 21.02.2024, it is observed that the CPIO has provided the reply to the applicant. The reply of the CPIO appears to be satisfactory. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
However, the appellant is at liberty to prefer a second appeal, if he so desires before the Hon'ble Central Information Commission, Room No.305, 2nd Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi as prescribed under the RTI Act, 2005"
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Complainant approached the Commission with the instant Complaint.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
A written submission dated 13.05.2025 has been received from the Complainant reiterating his queries seeking offer letter, ID card, designation, employee email id, gross or net taxable income of his wife.
The Respondent has also submitted written submission dated 19.05.2025 reiterating the PIO's reply and the FAA's order stating that response from available records has been duly furnished to the Appellant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties.
Complainant: Heard through audio conference Respondent: Shri Agja Pranav Kumar - Asstt. ROC, Mumbai was heard through audio conference during hearing Both parties are heard and submitted their respective contentions as noted hereinabove. The Complainant contended that information sought by him has been unfairly denied by the Respondent and sought that information should be provided to him. Respondent on the other reiterated that since such information is not available in their records, the same could not be furnished. The Respondent further pointed out that the Complainant had sought same set of information vide another RTI application dated 19.02.2024 which had been duly responded vide PIO's reply dated 21.02.2024.Page 2 of 3
Decision:
Perusal of the records of the case reveal that appropriate response has been provided to the Complainant by the CPIO as per the provisions of the RTI Act. The Complainant has chosen not to attend the hearing despite service of hearing notice in advance. Since the Complainant has approached the Commission with this Complaint under Section 18 of the RTI Act, the only question which requires adjudication is whether there was any willful concealment of information. Records of the case reveal that the Respondent had sent the information, following due course of law as envisaged under the RTI Act, 2005. Therefore, no question of deliberate or wilful denial of information arises in this case. It is worthwhile to refer to 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:
"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. .......................
"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...."
In the given circumstances, the Commission is of the opinion that information provided by the Respondent suffers from no legal infirmity and neither any case of deliberate or malafide denial or concealment of information by the Respondent is found in this case. Hence, no action under Section 18 of the RTI Act is required.
The case is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानित प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उि-िंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)