Information regarding a trading company was denied u/s 8(1)(h) - PIO: company is under investigation pursuant to Section 235 of the Companies Act; sharing information would impede the process of investigation by SFIO - CIC: appeal rejected
11 Jan, 2014ORDER
1. The appellant through his RTI application dated 16.8.2012 sought copies of three documents in respect of M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. – (1) Letter of Regional Director Southern Region under Letter No. 3/M- 10422/B.S.T.S./2010 dated 16.6.2010 received by the public authority; (2) Letter of Public Authority dated 16.6.2010 under No. 37948/STA(SRR)/ROC/2009 and (3) Letter of Regional Directorate, Southern Region under letter No. 3/WP NO 7315 of 2010/Subhiksha/RD/112/2010 dated 25.6.2010 received by the public authority. The CPIO vide letter No. RTI/ROC/Subhiksha/1045 & 1058/2010 dated 28.9.2012 denied information to the appellant under the provisions of section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act.
2. Aggrieved with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed first appeal 15.12.2012 before the FAA. The FAA vide letter dated 22.1.2013 informed the appellant that the information as sought for relating to M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd is under enquiry u/s 234 of the Companies Act, 1956 which culminated into an investigation by Serious Fraud Investigation Office (SFIO) u/s 235 of the Companies Act, 1956. The inspection of records as sought by the appellant could not be acceded under the express provisions contained in Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act, which clearly states that “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”.
3. In his second appeal filed before the Commission, the appellant states that the information relating to certain files available with the Public Authority pertaining to M/s. Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd for which permission from the said company to access the information had been obtained and furnished with his application. The CPIO and FAA denied information under section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The respondent have in no manner set out how the disclosure of the records would impede the process of investigation.
4. During the hearing the respondent CPIO states that parting with the copies of records or allow inspection of a Company which is under investigation pursuant to Section 235 of the Companies Act will hamper the investigation and will go against the intention of such safeguards provided under Companies Act, 1956 and hence exempted under Section 8(1) (h) of the RTI Act.
5. Having considered the submissions of the parties, the Commission is of the view that the information relating to Subhiksha Trading Services Ltd. which is under investigation of SFIO and sharing information with the appellant would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders and hence exempted under the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders; of the RTI Act. The Commission finds no reason to disagree with the replies of the respondent. The matter is disposed of on the part of the Commission.
(Sushma Singh)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri R. Rajender Kumar v. Registrar of Companies in Case No. CIC/SS/A/2013/000666