Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Mr.K Lall vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 20 March, 2013

                       Central Information Commission
            Room No. 305, 2nd Floor, 'B' Wing, August Kranti Bhavan, 
                    Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi­110066
                   Web: www.cic.gov.in Tel No: 26167931

                                                Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001934
                                                             Dated: 20.03.2013

Name of Appellant                 :      Shri K. Lall

Name of Respondent                :      Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Date of Hearing                   :      07.02.2013

                                      ORDER

Shri K. Lall, hereinafter called the appellant, has filed the present appeal dated 25.3.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi for not providing information in response to his RTI- application dated 21.7.2011. The appellant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri P.K. Batta, Joint Director.

2. The appellant through his RTI application dated 21.7.2011 sought information on the following three queries: "(i) Shareholding pattern as filed by NSE with annual return w.e.f. FY 1993-94 to 2009-10; (ii) Please inform status of his letter dated 18.11.2009 addressed to the Minister of Corporate Affairs regarding the functioning of ROC's and false information being filed by the companies. Please inform me the action taken under section 628 of Companies Act, 1956; and (iii) Please also inform the name of the officials who are responsible for scrutiny of the annual returns of NSE since incorporation, because at the time of incorporation it was Government Company, but records show it is Private Sector Company". The CPIO vide letter No. 3/186/2009-CL.II dated 26.8.2011 informed on Point No. (i) and (iii) that the is available on the 2 Case No. CIC/SS/A/2012/001934 public domain as such not to be treated as held or under the control of the public authority. On Point No. (ii) the appellant was informed that his letter dated 18.11.2009 was referred to the Regional Director, Ministry of Corporate Affairs at Mumbai for examination and report vide Ministry's letter dated 6.1.2010. The RD has furnished a report, whereby ROC has reported that there are no apparent facts/ information available in his office to show that false information has been furnished in Form -20B attracting provisions of Section 628 of the Companies Act, 1956.

3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 22.9.2011 before the FAA. The FAA vide his order No. 3/186/2009/CL.II dated 27.10.2011 directed the CPIO to forward the share holding pattern for the last three years filed by NSE, as available in the electronic record of the Company and forward a copy of letter received from ROC, Mumbai dated 8.3.2010 and 1.4.2011. As regards the name of officials who were responsible for scrutiny of the annual report, the CPIO has been asked to inform the appellant that Section 234 of the Companies Act, 1956 authorizes the Registrar of Companies to examine/ scrutinize the records as filed and available in the record. The CPIO vide his letter dated 2.11.2011 has complied with the directions of the FAA.

4. It is the contention of the appellant in his second appeal filed before the Commission that Section 22 of the RTI Act overrides all laws/rules inconsistent with RTI Act and hence, the contention of the respondent that the information is available in public domain, at prohibitive cost to the common man is not in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The cost charged by the public authority is at commercial rate for the companies. They cannot charge more than the rule provides without any fuss and delay.

5. During the hearing, in a written statement, the FAA submits that the Ministry of Corporate Affairs is the first Ministry of the Central Government which have initiated computerization of all its records under its flagship programme -

MCA 21 e-Gov. Portal in 2006. All data on the electronic portal provides available information 24X7, 365 days a year, from anywhere in the world to the users/information seekers. Further provisions of Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, provides that any person may inspect any documents kept by Registrar and/or may obtain a copy of any document, certified to be true copy which shall, in all legal proceedings, be admissible in evidence as of equal validity with the original document. The fees have been prescribed under Rule 21A Companies (Central Government's) General Rules and Forms, 1956.

6. The High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 1.6.2012 in W.P. (c) 11271/2009 in the matter of Registrar of Companies & Others Vs. Dharmendra Kumar Garg & another held "Firstly, I may notice that I do not find anything inconsistent between the scheme provided u/s 610 of the Companies Act and the provisions of the RTI Act. Merely because a different charge is collected for providing information under Section 610 of the Companies Act than that prescribed as the fee for providing information under the RTI Act does not lead to an inconsistency in the provisions of these two enactments. Even otherwise, the provisions of the RTI Act would not override the provision contained in Section 610 of the Companies Act. Section 610 of the Companies Act is an earlier piece of legislation. The said provision was introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 at the time of its enactment in the year 1956 itself. On the other hand, the RTI Act is a much later enactment, enacted in the year 2005. The RTI Act is a general law/enactment which deals with the right of a citizen to access information available with a public authority, subject to the conditions and limitations prescribed in the said Act. On the other hand, Section 610 of the Companies Act is a piece of special legislation, which deals specifically with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records i.e. information from the ROC. Therefore, the later general law cannot be read or understood to have abrogated the earlier special law."

7. Consistent with the aforementioned decision of the High Court of Delhi, the Commission is of the view that the fees prescribed under the Companies Act will prevail over the fees prescribed by the RTI Rules. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the replies of the respondent.

(Sushma Singh) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:

(K.K. Sharma) OSD & Deputy Registrar Address of the parties:

Shri K. Lall, 90/88, Ground Floor, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi-110017 The CPIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.

The First Appellate Authority, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, 5th Floor, Shastri Bhavan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi-110001.