9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (6) TMI 176 - HC - Companies LawWhether information in relation to a company can be sought from PIO of the ROC in garb of information sought under Right to information (RTI) Act - Held that - Information which could be accessed by any person by resort to Section 610 of the Companies Act is information which is already placed in the public domain, and it cannot be said that the said information is held by or is under the control of the public authority. It was contended that such information, as has already been placed in the public domain, does not fall within the scope of the RTI Act and a citizen cannot by-pass the procedure, and avoid paying the charges prescribed for accessing the information placed in the public domain, by resort to provisions of the RTI Act. Present petition is allowed and impugned orders passed by Central Information Commissioner are thereby quashed.
Issues Involved:
1. Interplay between Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Right to Information Act, 2005. 2. Whether information accessible under Section 610 of the Companies Act can be sought under the RTI Act. 3. The propriety of the Central Information Commissioner's decision-making process. 4. The imposition of penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interplay between Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, and the Right to Information Act, 2005: The primary legal issue revolves around whether information accessible under Section 610 of the Companies Act can be sought under the RTI Act. Section 610 allows any person to inspect documents filed with the Registrar of Companies (ROC) and obtain certified copies upon payment of prescribed fees. The petitioners argued that since this information is already in the public domain, it does not fall under the RTI Act's purview. 2. Whether information accessible under Section 610 of the Companies Act can be sought under the RTI Act: The judgment clarifies that information available under Section 610 of the Companies Act is already in the public domain and thus does not qualify as "information held by or under the control of" the public authority under the RTI Act. The court emphasized that the RTI Act aims to provide information not otherwise accessible, and since Section 610 provides a statutory mechanism for accessing this information, it should be preserved and operated independently of the RTI Act. The court noted that the fees prescribed under the Companies Act are statutory and specific, whereas the RTI Act's fee structure is general. 3. The propriety of the Central Information Commissioner's decision-making process: The court criticized the Central Information Commissioner (CIC), Sh. Shailesh Gandhi, for disregarding earlier decisions by other CICs without referring the matter to a larger bench. The court emphasized the importance of judicial discipline, stating that a single bench should respect earlier decisions of coordinate benches to avoid confusion and maintain consistency. The court highlighted that Sh. Shailesh Gandhi should have recorded his disagreement and referred the issue to a larger bench instead of taking a contrary view unilaterally. 4. The imposition of penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act: The court found the CIC's decision to issue show-cause notices for penalties under Section 20 of the RTI Act to be unjustified. The PIOs acted in accordance with a departmental circular and had no reason to believe their actions were incorrect. The court noted that penalties should only be imposed in cases of malafides or unreasonable conduct, which was not evident in this case. The PIOs' actions were deemed bona fide and without malice, and the court warned against imposing penalties in every case, as it could lead to undue pressure and skewed decisions by PIOs. Conclusion: The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders of the CIC. It held that information accessible under Section 610 of the Companies Act does not fall under the RTI Act's purview and emphasized the need for judicial discipline and reasonable imposition of penalties. The parties were left to bear their respective costs.
|
