2016 (5) TMI 908 - HC - Indian Laws

Maintainability of appeal - RTI - challenge the validity of order passed by the Central Information Commissioner - Held that - The present petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitionercompany, that too by its Director because the petitioner-company has already been wound up vide order dated 05.08.2014 passed by this Court the Official Liquidator attached to the Court has taken over the charge of both the movable and immovable assets of the petitioner-company. Thus the present petition is hereby dismissed being not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Validity of order declining information request due to record destruction, Maintainability of petition by wound-up company through its Director

Validity of Order Declining Information Request:
The petitioner, a company, filed a petition challenging the validity of an order by the Central Information Commissioner declining their information request due to record destruction. The respondent argued that the petition is not maintainable as the company has been wound up, and all actions should be taken by the Official Liquidator. The court referred to the Supreme Court judgment in Sirmur Chemical and General Industries Ltd. vs. Union of India, stating that post-winding up, only the liquidator can initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the company. The petitioner's counsel did not contest this argument. The court dismissed the petition as not maintainable due to the company being wound up, and its assets under the control of the Official Liquidator.

Maintainability of Petition by Wound-up Company Through its Director:
The court examined the maintainability of the petition filed by the company through its Director after being wound up. Citing the Supreme Court judgment and a Kerala High Court judgment, the court reiterated that post-winding up, all legal proceedings must be initiated by the Official Liquidator. The court emphasized that once a company is wound up, only the liquidator can act on its behalf. As the petitioner did not contest this legal position, the court dismissed the petition, stating it was not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition challenging the order declining the information request, citing the legal principle that post-winding up, only the Official Liquidator can initiate legal proceedings on behalf of the company. The court emphasized that once a company is wound up, actions must be taken by the liquidator, and not by the company or its directors. The petition was deemed not maintainable due to the company being wound up, and its assets being under the control of the Official Liquidator.