The RTI Act cannot be used to bypass specific statutory inspection mechanisms provided under other enactments, such as the Companies Act, 2013, nor can it be used to compel public authorities to provide interpretations, opinions, or reasons.

O R D E R

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 06.01.2025 seeking information on the following points:

Q.1 Certified copies of the Original Papers and Documents been filed by Aditya Kumar Tibrewal DIN: 00503511 and the First and Original Priyanka Tibrewal DIN: 02863560 for Incorporation of above named New Company Promoters

b. State the reasons for accepting/approving the mismatch the Signature and name of Priyanka Tibrewal as signed on the, upon Non-judicial Stamp Paper of Rs.50/- vide Mo. H369655 dt. 03.12.2009 issued in the name of A.K. Tibrewal, one of the First/Original Promoters, invalid and illegal Power of Attorney given in favour of CA Shital Khemka (M.No.061861), Kolkata-1 for the purpose of Incorporation the above-named New Company?.etc.

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 05.02.2025 and the same is reproduced as under:-

Query Point no. A It is to inform that the documents filed by the company are available in public domain and there is an inbuilt mechanism under MCA-21 system as per rules under the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. The information can be obtained by any person by inspecting the documents filed by the company kept with Registrar of Companies, under section 399 of the Companies Act, 2013 in conjunction with an inspection of the documents available on the website at www.mca.gov. in

It is further to informed that the CPIO is not authorised to issue the certified copy of the documents in the matter.

Query Point no. B, C, And D Seeking questions/queries/opinion are not covered under the definition of "information" under the RTI Act, 2005..etc.

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 14.02.2025 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. FAA vide order dated 12.03.2025 held as under:

“..This First Appeal has been preferred by the applicant, and he countered that the "CPIO did not disclose the proper information, kindly pass reasonable order and instruct the CPIO to furnish the details within no time.":

On perusal of RTI application, CPIO's reply, it is observed that CPIO has provided the following para wise information,

point no a -the CPIO informed that he is not authorized to issue the certified copy of the documents in the matter.

Point no b, c and d the CPIO informed that seeking queries are not covered under the definition of "information" under the RTI Act 2005.

Point no e to m the CPIO informed that the information is not separately maintained by this office. Further, the documents filed by the company are available in public domain.

On consideration of application and reply of CPIO, it has been observed that the large part of information is already available, if applicant apply U/s 399 of the Companies Act 2013.Some of the information are separately maintained, which is not available in the form and style of information as asked by the applicant. The "Information" only restricts the particulars which is as available in the "Public Authority". Hence, the CPIO has appropriately dealt with the application and furnished correct reply to the applicant...”

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 26.03.2025

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Present thr