Central Information Commission
Vivek Kashinath Chhatre vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 26 March, 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
नितीय अपील संख्या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/605558
Shri Vivek Kashinath Chhatre ... अपीलकताग/Appellant
VERSUS/बनाम
PIO, Ministry of Corporate Affairs ...प्रनतवािीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.03.2025
Date of Decision : 20.03.2025
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Heeralal Samariya
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 13.12.2023
PIO replied on : 29.12.2023
First Appeal filed on : NA
First Appellate Order on : 21.01.2024
2ndAppeal/complaint received on : 12.02.2024
Information soughtand background of the case:
The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 13.12.2023 seeking information on the following points:-
"Dear Sir.
1. Please refer NFRA Order No. NF-23/47/2021 dated 29.03.2023. Copy not attached as order is available with your office
2. Please provide the following information regarding the above order and its follow up by NERA
1. A copy of the response filed by Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited. MHRIL in compliance with Para 30.1 of the order by NFRA
2. A copy of the response filed by the Statutory Auditor of MHRII in compliance with Para 30.2 of the ibid order.
3. Notings on file and action taken by NFRA to ensure compliance of the above order by NFRA It may be noted that since the RTI Applicant is the original complainant in the matter the information sought is not exempt under 8 (1) (d) and 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act 2005"
The CPIO, Deputy General Manager, NFRA vide letter dated 29.12.2023 replied as under:-
"1-2. Information is exempt under section 8(1) (d) of The Right to Information Act, 2005
3. Information is exempt under section 8(1) (h) of The Right to Information Act, 2005"Page 1 of 5
Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal. The FAA vide order dated 21.01.2024 stated as under:-
"The requested information is denied under sub-section 8(1) (e) of the RTI Act and the decision taken by the CPIO is in order."
Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:
I. The Appellant has sent a written submission dated 01.03.2025 providing a detailed synopsis of the case. The key points of the Appellant's submission are as under:
RTI applicant preferred a complaint against Mahindra Holidays and Resorts India Limited, MHRIL for short, a public limited company and its statutory auditors for violation of prescribed accounting standards while declaring its financial reports Since the NFRA did not take action in a timely manner, the applicant filed a writ petition in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court to seek an order for disposal of his complaint in a time bound manner. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court was pleased to pass an order dated 18.01.2023 and passed directions to NFRA to decide the complaint by 31.03.2023. NFRA passed an order on 29.03.2023, inter alia holding that the accounting of MHRIL was deficient, relevant extracts whereof have been summarised by the Appellant as under:
para 30 of the NFRA order the NFRA inter alia directed MHRIL as under: a. Address deficiencies pointed out in the said order and effect changes in DISCLOSURES in letter and spirit as mandated by the Act, and, SEBI Listing Obligations and DISCLOSURE Requirements by 30.06.2023.
b. The review to be documented and verified by the statutory auditors of MHRIL by 31.07.2023.
c. MHRIL and its statutory auditors to report to NFRA separately and NFRA to take further action as per the Act and rules It is the Appellant's contention that being the complainant with NFRA, he was entitled to receive a copy of the response filed by MHRIL before any further action is taken by NFRA Due to the alleged refusal by NFRA to enforce its own order in gross violation of section 132(2)(b) of the Act, the Appellant filed Writ Petition No 11707/2024 in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.02.2025 granting liberty to the Appellant to seek information from NFRA II. Another written submission dated 05.03.2025 has been received from CPIO/DGM, NFRA providing a detailed account of the case including the following contentions:
That pursuant to the NFRA's order dated 29.03.2023, a reply dated 15.07.2023 was received from Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited and it was marked as "strictly confidential." Statutory auditors (BSR & Co. LLP) of the Company submitted the results of their review on 31.07.2023 of the company's assessment and it was submitted that they have obtained and evaluated the company assessment of its Page 2 of 5 accounting policies and practices with reference to the details as provided in the company's submission (Mahindra Holidays & Resorts India Limited) on 15.07.2023.
The Respondent stated that Rule 17 of the NFRA Rules 2018 enjoins NFRA to keep information provided to them confidential and secure. Further as per Rule 7 (3) of NFRA Rules 2018, that "the Authority shall publish its findings related to non-compliances on its website and in such other manner as it considers fit, unless it has reasons not to do so in public interest and it records the reason in writing". NFRA published the final outcome of its examination, which was also provided to the complainant, in form of the NFRA order dated 29.03.2023, which is a speaking order, is self-contained and provides detailed reasoning for conclusions and directions in the matter. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has not issued any directions to NFRA vide order dated 24.02.2025 to provide any specific information. The Respondent NFRA concluded their arguments stating as under:
It is humbly submitted to Hon'ble CIC to consider NFRA's averments with regard to appellant's information request given in para 7. It is requested to please consider that NFRA order dated 29.03.2023, which is a speaking order, is self-contained and provides detailed reasoning for conclusions and directions in the matter, has already been provided to the complainant.
Hearing was scheduled after giving prior notice to both the parties. Appellant: Present through video conference.
Respondent: Shri Mrityunjay Singh - DGM, NFRA was present during hearing. Both parties present during hearing reiterated their respective contentions as borne out from the records, specifically from the respective written submissions filed by both parties. Arguments of both parties emphasising their respective contentions about disclosure of the reply filed by MHRIL were heard at length and duly taken on record. The Appellant has pointed out that the NFRA has delayed the process of investigation and the respondent has taken an additional defence that the information sought by the Appellant is held by them on behalf of the company in fiduciary capacity.
Decision:
Upon examining the records of the instant case it is noted that the Appellant's prime contention is that as the original complainant he is entitled to a copy of the response filed by MHRIL. He has placed reliance on the decision dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein liberty had been granted to him to seek information from NFRA.
The Respondent on the other hand stated that the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by NFRA pursuant to directions of the Hon'ble High Court's order dated 18.01.2023 has been published, which contains the final outcome of its examination of the Appellant's complaint and copy of it has been duly provided to the Appellant. The said order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the NFRA is a speaking order, self-contained and provides detailed reasoning for conclusions and directions in the matter.
At this point it is pertinent to note that the decision dated 24.02.2025 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, relied upon by the Appellant to obtain the information Page 3 of 5 whereby the Appellant's Writ petition no. 11707/2024 was decided contains the following observation:
" 5. In the opinion of this Court, once an order has already been passed by an authority giving directions to be complied with by a company, the petitioner has no locus to file a subsequent petition seeking orders for monitoring of compliance by the High Court.
6. Mr. Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 3 company, submits that the directions as communicated by NFRA have already been complied with.
7. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel for NFRA, submits that the jurisdiction of NFRA is limited to passing directions as provided in Section 132 of the Companies Act, 2013.
8. He submits that Respondent No. 2 authority is cognizant of its responsibility and as and when any further orders are required to be passed, the same would be done in accordance with law.
9. The petitioner seems to be aggrieved that he is not aware of any proceeding or action being taken by Respondent No. 2 authority.
10. The petitioner is at liberty to take appropriate steps for seeking information from NFRA.
11. No orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
12. The present petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s) also stand disposed of.
Perusal of the above records and contentions indicate that the order dated 29.03.2023 passed by the Respondent is a detailed and speaking order, wherein the contentions of MHRIL and the Appellant have been discussed at length. Denial of remaining information by the respondent is found legally appropriate, upon perusal of the order dated 29.03.2023.
In fact the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi upon taking cognizance of the NFRA's order dated 29.03.2023 and the Appellant's contention has observed: In the opinion of this Court, once an order has already been passed by an authority giving directions to be complied with by a company, the petitioner has no locus to file a subsequent petition seeking orders for monitoring of compliance by the High Court Accordingly, the Hon'ble High Court had chosen not to pass any directions to the NFRA holding that: No orders are required to be passed in the present petition.
In the light of the above factual position which transpired in the foregoing paragraphs, it is noted that the Respondent had furnished information available on records, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, and as permissible under the provisions of the Act. Considering the fact that the response of the PIO is legally appropriate and well within the precincts of the RTI Act no further intervention is warranted in this case, under the RTI Act.Page 4 of 5
The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
Heeralal Samariya (हीरालाल सामररया) Chief Information Commissioner (मुख्य सूचना आयुक्त) Authenticated true copy (अनिप्रमानणत सत्यानपत प्रनत) S. K. Chitkara (एस. के . नचटकारा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011-26186535 Page 5 of 5 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)