Central Information Commission
Arjun Pitti vs Regional Director(Er),Kolkata on 30 April, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
केंद्रीय सच
ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ मागग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मनु नरका, नई ददल्ऱी - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
Decision no.: CIC/RDERK/A/2018/634882/03309
File no.: CIC/RDERK/A/2018/634882
In the matter of:
Arjun Pitti
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
O/o Regional Director (ER)
Ministry of Corporate Affairs
Nizam Palace II MSO Building 3rd Floor,
234/4, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700 020
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 21/04/2018 CPIO replied on : 18/05/2018 First appeal filed on : 13/07/2018
First Appellate Authority order : 10/08/2018 Second Appeal dated : 05/11/2018 Date of Hearing : 27/04/2020 Date of Decision : 27/04/2020 The following were present:
Appellant: Present over phone Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Tripathi, Assistant Director and CPIO, present over phone Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the details of applications received in the office of the respondent public authority u/s 230 to 233 of the Companies Act for merger and demerger since 01/04/2016 till date.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO has not provided the desired information.1
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO.
The CPIO claimed exemption from disclosure of information u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act. He further submitted that he disagrees with the earlier reply of the then CPIO and the FAA. To substantiate his claim of exemption, he relied on the CIC order passed in File no. CIC/VS/A/2013/000749 dated 27.05.2014 and File no. CIC/SG/A/2012/001442/MP dated 03.07.2014.
Observations:
Having heard the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of the records, it is noted that the appellant has sought the details of applications received in the office of the respondent public authority u/s 230 to 233 of the Companies Act for merger and demerger. During the hearing, the CPIO submitted that this information cannot be shared with the appellant as the same is exempted form disclosure u/s 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. He also relied on an earlier order passed by the Commission in File no. CIC/SG/A/2012/001442/MP, wherein it was held:
"5. The respondents submitted that the information sought is third party information and the disclosure of the same would affect the commercial confidence of third party. Also, the information sought is held in fiduciary capacity with the RBI. Hence, Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act is getting attracted. CIC in their previous decision no CIC/VS/A/2013/000749/MP dated 27/5/2014 has upheld the CPIO's stand in a similar case. Also, no larger public interest has been established by the appellant in the disclosure of the above information.
If the appellant wishes to study the procedure of filing complaint under the FEMA Act, the rules relating to foreign exchange compounding proceedings and RBI Master Circular is available on the RBI website.
Decision Notice
6. The Commissions upholds the CPIO's submissions and disposes of the appeal."
It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant in the present case had asked for details of the applications received by the respondent authority u/s 230- 232 of the Companies Act. These applications include a notice of admission 2 from the companies who want merger/amalgamation, an affidavit, a copy of scheme of compromise or arrangement including disclosure of latest financial position of the company, latest auditors report on the accounts of the companies and the pendency of any investigation or proceedings against the company and other important documents related to the company's internal work affairs. This information, if disclosed, will undoubtedly affect the commercial confidence of the companies who have filed the applications u/s 230-232 of the Companies Act in relation to the other companies. Hence, the Commission agrees with the submissions of the CPIO that this information is exempted u/s 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission is of the view that as the appellant has sought details of the applications received regarding amalgamation u/s 230-232 of the Companies Act , in such a case, upholding the initial reply of the then CPIO regarding inspection may be detrimental to the commercial interest of companies as explained above. Hence, the plea of the CPIO regarding exemption u/s 8(1)(d) is upheld. No further action is required.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सच ू ना आयक् ु त) Authenticated true copy (अभिप्रमाणित सत्यापित प्रतत) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दिन ंक / Date 3