RANVEER SINGH v. Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan, Central Information Commission, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, Ranveer Singh, along with another director, Gajendra Singh Panwar, filed a complaint against Girivar Hotel and Resort Private Ltd under Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013. The appellant sought information under the RTI Act regarding actions taken by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) pursuant to this complaint, including copies of information provided by the company and other directors to the ROC and details of any actions taken under relevant subsections of Section 206.

The RTI application was filed on 3 December 2020, and the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) replied on 11 December 2020. Dissatisfied with the response, the appellant filed a first appeal on 13 December 2020, which was disposed of by the First Appellate Authority (FAA) on 22 December 2020 upholding the CPIO's reply. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed on 2 February 2021. The hearing and decision by the Central Information Commission took place on 9 June 2022.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the CPIO provided complete and timely information regarding the action taken by the ROC under Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013, in relation to the complaint against Girivar Hotel and Resort Private Ltd.

Whether the delay in providing updated information and action taken by the ROC was justifiable.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

The appellant was not satisfied with the CPIO's reply and sought further correspondences between the Jaipur office and the Regional Director, Northern Western Region (NWR).

The appellant pressed for clarity on the status of the letter dated 24 November 2020 sent by the ROC to the Regional Director, NWR.

Respondent's Arguments

The CPIO submitted that the matter was still under consideration with the Regional Director, NWR.

The CPIO stated that the company had submitted its reply on 20 November 2020 in response to an office order dated 7 October 2020, and the ROC had forwarded a report to the Regional Director for further directions on 24 November 2020.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Commission reviewed the record, including the CPIO's reply and the procedural history. It noted that the company had responded to the ROC's order and that the ROC had forwarded the matter to the Regional Director, NWR, for further instructions. The Commission observed a significant delay in the disposal of the report by the Regional Director, which impeded the timely provision of information to the appellant. The Commission emphasized that such delays defeat the purpose of the RTI Act, which is to provide citizens with prompt access to information. Consequently, the Commission directed the CPIO to seek assistance under Section 5(4) of the RTI Act from the Regional Director, NWR, to provide an updated response to the appellant within ten days of receiving the order.

Holding and Implications

The appeal was DISPOSED OF with the direction that the CPIO obtain updated information from the Regional Director, NWR, and furnish it to the appellant within ten days. The Commission highlighted the avoidable nature of such delays, underscoring the importance of timely information dissemination under the RTI Act. No new precedent was established; the decision primarily enforced procedural compliance to ensure effective implementation of the RTI framework in this matter.

RANVEER SINGH v. Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan

क य सचुना आयोग

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION

बाबा गंगनाथ माग

Baba Gangnath Marg

मुनरका, नई दल - 110067 Munirka, New Delhi-110067 File no.: - CIC/ROCRJ/A/2021/602986 In the matter of

Ranveer Singh

... Appellant

CPIO,

Registrar of Companies (ROC) & Official Liquidator C/6-7, Corporate Bhawan, Residency Area, Civil Lines, 1st Floor, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302001

...Respondent

RTI application filed on	:	03/12/2020
CPIO replied on	:	11/12/2020
First appeal filed on	:	13/12/2020
First Appellate Authority order	:	22/12/2020
Second Appeal filed on	:	02/02/2021
Date of Hearing	:	09/06/2022
Date of Decision	:	09/06/2022

The following were present:

Appellant: Present over VC

Respondent: Yash Raj Kumar, AROC and CPIO, present over VC

Information Sought:

The Appellant has stated that he along with another Director namely Gajendra

Singh Panwar had filed a complaint against Girivar Hotel and Resort Private Ltd

(hereinafter referred to as Company) under Section 206 of the Companies Act,

2013. In this connection, he has sought the following information:

i. The action taken against the Company by ROC under sub section (3) of section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013.

ii. Provide a copy of the information provided by the said Company and other directors and professionals (except Gajendra Singh Panwar and the appellant) to ROC pursuant to Order dated 7^thOct 2020 issued by ROC.

iii. If no information provided in respect of point number (ii) above, provide details of action taken by the ROC under sub section (3) and sub section (4) of the Section 206 of the Companies Act, 2013.

Grounds for Second Appeal

The CPIO did not provide the desired information.

Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:

The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO. He pressed for the correspondences between the Jaipur office and NWR. The CPIO was asked to explain the present status of the letter of 24.11.2020, to which he submitted that the matter is still under consideration with Regional Director, NWR.

Observations:

Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide online reply dated 11.12.2020 replied that the company viz. Girivar Hotel and Resorts Private Limited had filed its reply in their office on 20.11.2020 in response to the office order dated 07.10.2020. Subsequently, the office had sent a report in the matter to Regional Director, NWR vide letter dated 24.11.2020 for seeking further directions/instructions in the matter for further course of action.

The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and had filed a first appeal on 13.12.2020. The FAA on 22.12.2020 disposed of the first appeal and held that the CPIO had provided correct information.

Decision:

In view of the above observations, the Commission noted that there is a huge delay in disposal of the said report and therefore, directed the CPIO to take assistance u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act from Regional Director, NWR and provide an updated reply to the appellant within 10 days from the date of receipt of the order. Such delays defeat the purpose of seeking information under the RTI Act

and the Commission holds that such huge delays are avoidable to enable helping citizens to get timely information.

The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)

Information Commissioner (सचूना आयुत)

Authenticated true copy

(अभमाणत सयापत त)

A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)

Dy. Registrar (उप-पजं ीयक)

011- 26182594 /

दनाकं / Date

CIC/ROCRJ/A/2021/602986

RANVEER SINGH v. Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

Respondent's Arguments

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

RANVEER SINGH v. Registrar of Companies, Rajasthan

Comments