Certified copy of Article 19 of the Articles of Association of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. - PIO: Section 610 of Companies Act, 1956 provides access to the document filed by the companies with the ROCs - CIC: SCN to PIO for not following order of FAA
30 Sep, 2013Certified copy of the full text of Article 19 of the Articles of Association of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd. - PIO: there is a built in mechanism under the provisions of Section 610 of Companies Act, 1956 for providing access to the public at large to the document filed by the companies with the ROCs – FAA: since the information sought is meager, the PIO to call for the document file of the company from the Record Room, and provide the copy of desired document if available in the file – CIC: show-cause notice u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the then PIO for imposing penalty.
ORDER
Shri Kishan Murgai, hereinafter called the complainant has filed the present complaint dated 15.10.2012 before the Commission against the respondent Office of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana, New Delhi for not complying with the directions of the FAA relating to his RTI application dated 16.4.2012. The complainant was absent whereas the respondent were represented by Shri Pankaj Batra, Advocate.
2. The complainant through his RTI application dated 16.4.2012 sought certified copy of the full text of Article 19 of the Articles of Association of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd., which is registered as a Company with ROC. The CPIO vide letter No. RTI/2011/MISC/44 dated 27.4.2012 informed the appellant that as there is a built in mechanism under the provisions of Section 610 of Companies Act, 1956 for providing access to the public at large to the document filed by the companies pursuant to various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with the ROCs. Hence, the information is available in the public domain cannot be treated as “information held under the Control of the Public Authority” pursuant to Section 2(j) “right to information” means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes the right to- (i) inspection of work, documents, records; (ii) taking notes, extracts or certified copies of documents or records; (iii) taking certified samples of material; (iv) obtaining information in the form of diskettes, floppies, tapes, video cassettes or in any other electronic mode or through printouts where such information is stored in a computer or in any other device; of the RTI Act.
3. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal on 9.5.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide order No. RTI/2012/MISC/125 dated 18.6.2012 held that since the information sought can be obtained by inspecting the documents filed by the Company, the information provided by the CPIO was correct. But since the information sought is meager, the FAA directed the CPIO to call for the document file of the company from the Record Room, and provide the copy of desired document if available in the file.
4. In his complaint filed before the Commission, the complainant requests the Commission to direct the CPIO to provide certified copy of Article 19 of DGC and requests appropriate action against the CPIO for non-compliance of FAA’s directions.
5. The Commission is of the view that the Ms. P. Sheela, the then Dy. Registrar of Companies & CPIO has prima-facie failed to comply with the directions of the FAA which has caused a delay of more than 100 days in providing information to the complainant. A separate show-cause notice u/s 20(1) Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. Where the Central Information Commission or the State Information Commission, as the case may be, at the time of deciding any complaint or appeal is of the opinion that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, has, without any reasonable cause, refused to receive an application for information or has not furnished information within the time specified under sub-section (1) of section 7 or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly given incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroyed information which was the subject of the request or obstructed in any manner in furnishing the information, it shall impose a penalty of two hundred and fifty rupees each day till application is received or information is furnished, so however, the total amount of such penalty shall not exceed twenty-five thousand rupees: Provided that the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, shall be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard before any penalty is imposed on him: Provided further that the burden of proving that he acted reasonably and diligently shall be on the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. of the RTI Act would be issued to the Ms. P. Sheela, then the CPIO, asking her to show-cause why a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- should not be imposed upon her.
6. The CPIO is hereby directed to provide authenticated copy of the full text of Article 19 of the Articles of Association of Delhi Gymkhana Club Ltd to the appellant free of cost within seven days of receipt of this order.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Kishan Murgai v. Registrar of Companies in Case No. CIC/SS/C/2012/000936