के (cid:574)ीय सूचना आयोग Central Information Commission बाबा गंगनाथ माग१,मुिनरका

Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka नई िद(cid:671)ी, New Delhi – 110067 ि(cid:554)तीय अपील संূा / Second Appeal No. CIC/ROCDH/A/2025/611050 Rajay Kumar Agarwal … अपीलकता१/Appellant VERSUS बनाम CPIO: Registrar of Companies …ঋितवादीगण/Respondents Ministry of Corporate Affairs, New Delhi Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 09.10.2024 FA : 06.12.2024 SA : 05.03.2025 CPIO : 07.11.2024 FAO : 02.01.2025 Hearing : 09.04.2026 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026 CORAM:

Hon’ble Commissioner Shri P R Ramesh O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 09.10.2024 seeking information on the following points:

“Kindly provide the details relating to Striking-off of the name of Real Tourism (India) Private Limited, cin: u63040dl1995ptc073095, registered address 801/1, sukhde market kotla mubarkpur, New Delhi, Delhi-110003 along with copy of the Official Notification or Gazette Notification published in this regard either in physical or in electronic form.”

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.11.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

“Reply: For the information which has been asked by you through present RTI application, your application was marked u/s 5(4) of the RTI Act, 2005 for reply to the complaint cell of this office who are looking after the matter and possessing the information relating to the matter. As per information as received from the complaint cell, reply is as follows:

As per the records available and maintained by Strike off cell, no such data found in the matter of Real Tourism (India) Private Limited. This is for your kind consideration.

The above reply has been received from the complaint cell of this office and accordingly CPIO has communicated the same to the applicant as it is.

With above terms your application under RTI Act, 2005 is hereby disposed off. If you are not satisfied with this office reply you can move an appeal under section

19 of RTI Act, 2005 before the First Appellate Authority mention as under: -

Sh. Gaurav, Deputy ROC cum First Appellate Authority NCT of Delhi & Haryana”

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 06.12.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 02.01.2025 observed as under:-

“The RTI application dated 09.10.2024 and reply of CPIO dated 07.11.2024 was perused and CPIO is directed to review the reply dated 07.11.2024 of the RTI Application and provide appropriate/ updated reply in respect to information sought RTI Application, as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.

The RTI Appeal is being disposed of accordingly.”

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 05.03.2025.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present in person.

Respondent: Shri Chetan Kumar B, Assistant ROC- participated in the hearing.

5. The Appellant inter alia submitted that the relevant information has not been provided to him till date.

6. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the information sought is already in public domain on the official website of mca. He averred that the master data of the company is in public domain and can be easily accessed. He averred that the information sought is not available in their records but same is available on the official website of ministry of corporate affairs i.e.

www.mca.gov.in.

Decision:

7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observed that the Appellant’s queries had been appropriately answered by the concerned PIO. The reply is self- explanatory and information as permissible under the provisions of the RTI Act has been duly supplied to the Appellant. it is further clarified during hearing by the Respondent that the master data of the company is available on the official website of ministry o