Information about companies/firms/LLP registered under ROCAP and those which have inducted foreign nationals as directors etc was sought - CIC: Eexemption claimed u/s 8 is not specific and the same was not amplified in the reply; Send a revised reply
20 Feb, 2023Information Sought:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. Provide the total number of companies/firms/LLP registered under ROCAP as on date. Out of the said companies, provide details of active and inactive companies separately. Also, provide details of prosecution proceedings initiated against the companies/Firms/LLP etc., details for illegalities, fraud, violations, misuse, etc.,
2. Provide details of the companies/Firms/LLP etc. which have inducted or taken or allowed foreign nationals as directors. In those companies, while taking foreign nationals, whether the said companies took prior permission from ROCAP? Provide details in this regard.
3. Provide the DIN details of the directors, who have joined as companies/Firms/LLP etc. as Directors/ Managers, key officials while they have been working as public servants.
4. And other related information.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal contested the CPIO’s reply, in respect of point no. 1 he submitted that the information provided by the CPIO is partial and he refused to furnish the prosecution details pending with ROC, Vijayawada. In respect of point no. 2 he submitted that the information provided by the CPIO shows scepticism in the subject matter. The CPIO stating that information was not available with his office, is not the right reply. If information is not available with his office, it is the duty of the CPIO to transfer that application under 6(3) of the Act. Moreover, the information requested by him is very important and there are several companies especially his employer is a foreign national who is holding the majority share in the company shareholding and the complaints are also pending with CPIO from January, 2019. The CPIO not only avoided the information and suggested false information which is not available in online.
He alleged that the FAA also without application of mind simply stated as "from Sl. No 1 to 11 has already answered" It shows clear collusion and abetment between CPIO and FAA. The information requested under this point interlinked with national security, integrity and the financial sector of the country. Hence the CIC may order for inquiry in this subject matter by invoking the provisions Under section 18(2) Where the Central Information Commission or State Information Commission, as the case may be, is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to inquire into the matter, it may initiate an inquiry in respect thereof. of the RTI Act, 2005 in the interest of the nation and also enquiry about the properties acquired by the CPIO and FAA during working period with Vijayawada office.
In respect of points No.3 to 16 also he alleged that the information provided was not proper.
He summed up requesting the CIC to direct the CPIO and FAA to provide the requested information to recover the tax evasion by Mr Peter, foreign national as it is necessary for the agencies to regulate the fraud in issuance of illegal VISAs and renewals.
The CPIO reiterated the reply given on 21.06.2022.
Observations:
The CPIO had provided a point-wise reply on 21.06.2022. However, on points no. 10, 12 to 16 the reply given was not proper. In respect of point no. 10 a final reply should be given. As far as points no. 12 to 16 are concerned, the exemption claimed u/s 8 is not specific and also the same was not amplified in the reply. The CPIO is accordingly directed to revisit those points and addressing the appellant’s second appeal, a revised reply should be given on points no. 10,12 to 16. For the rest of the points, the reply given was just and proper.
Decision:
The CPIO is accordingly directed to provide a revised reply on points no. 10, 12 to 16 and also substantiate his reply with the proper exemption clause under the RTI Act, in case of denial, within 7 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna
Information Commissioner
Citation: Audi Suresh Babu v. Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh (ROCAP); File no.: - CIC/ROCAP/A/2022/644001, Date of Decision: 09/02/2023