W.P.(C.) No. 11271/2009

Page 1 of 38

*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Judgment reserved on: 22.05.2012

%

Judgment delivered on: 01.06.2012

+

W.P.(C) 11271/2009

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES & ORS

..... Petitioners

Through:

Mr. Pankaj Batra, Advocate.

versus

DHARMENDRA KUMAR GARG & ANR

..... Respondents

Through:

Mr. Rajeshwar Kumar Gupta and

Ms. Shikha Soni, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

J U D G M E N T

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

1.

The present writ petition has been preferred by the Registrar of

Companies, NCT of Delhi & Haryana (ROC) and its CPIOs Sh. Raj Kumar

Shah and Sh. Atma Shah to assail two similar orders dated 14.07.2009

passed by the Central Information Commission (CIC) in complaint case

Nos. CIC/SG/C/2009/000702 and CIC/SG/C/2009/000753. By these

similar orders, the appeals preferred by the same respondent- querist

were allowed, rejecting the defence of the petitioners founded upon

2012:DHC:3833

W.P.(C.) No. 11271/2009

Page 2 of 38

Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956, and it was directed that the

complete information sought by the respondent-querist in his two

applications under the Right to Information Act (RTI Act) be provided to

him before 25.07.2009. The CIC has also directed issuance of show-

cause notice to the petitioner-PIOs under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act

asking them to show-cause as to why penalty should not be imposed

upon them for not furnishing information as sought by the querist

within thirty days.

2.

The querist-Shri Dharmendra Kumar Garg filed an application

under the RTI Act on 28.05.2009 requiring the PIO of the ROC to

provide the following information in relation to company No. 056045

M/s Bloom Financial Services Limited:

“1.

2012:DHC:3833

W.P.(C.) No. 11271/2009

Page 3 of 38

filed at ROC.”

3.

The PIO-Sh. Atma Shah responded to the said queries on

29.05.2009. In respect of queries No. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 & 8, the stand taken

by the PIO was as follows:

2012:DHC:3833

W.P.(C.) No. 11271/2009

Page 4 of 38

public.”

4.

The queries at serial Nos. 4 & 5, as aforesaid, were also

responded to by the PIO. However, I am not concerned with the

answers given in response to the said queries, as the legal issue raised

in the present petition by the petitioners relates to the interplay

between Section 610 of the Companies Act on the one hand, and the

provisions of the RTI Act on the other hand. Not satisfied with the

response given by the PIO Sh. Atma Shah, as aforesaid, the

respondent-querist, without preferring a first appeal, straightway

preferred an appeal before the CIC, which has been disposed of vide

impugned

order

dated

14.07.2009

in

complaint

case

No.

CIC/SG/C/2009/000702.

5.

The respondent-querist raised further queries in respect of the

same company vide an RTI application dated 06.06.2009. This

application was also responded to by the PIO Sh. Atma Shah on

23.06.2009. In this reply as well, in respect of certain queries, the PIO

responded by placing reliance on Section 610 of the Companies Act

and gave more or less the same reply, as extracted above. Since the

respondent-querist was not satisfied with the said response, he

preferred a petition before the CIC, once again by-passing the

statutory first appeal provided under the RTI Act. This appeal was

registered as complaint case No. CIC/SG/C/2009/000753.

2012:DHC:3833

W.P.(C.) No. 11271/2009

Page 5 of 38

6.

Before the CIC, the petitioners contended that the 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