[HumJanenge] IC Sushma Singh converted Right To Information into right to denie information

PRSEC/E/2013/04301

To,

Hon'ble President of India,

Rashtrapati Bhavan,

New Delhi

Subject:- Complaint against Information Commissioner Smt.Sushma Singh, Central Information Commission New Delhi

Respected Sir,

                       With reference to above mentioned subject I am filling this complaint against irresponsible behavior of  Information commissioner Smt. Sushma Singh as under  :-

I had filled appeal against the companies Registrar and which was heard by Information Commissioner Smt. Sushma Singh dated 18.12.2012. During the hearing I told the commissioner following issues:-

a)That there is no provision for providing information in specific time limit under Companies Act and even the rules framed their under.

b)That there is no provision if the information is not provided in specific time limit.

c)That there is provision for providing information free of cost for delaying information.

The learned ignored my arguments and even she is not aware of interpretation statutes since she has refused my arguments about the proviso described in section of RTI Act 2008 which clearly states the information which cannot be denied to Parliament cannot be denied to citizens but she has ignored this proviso also.

The learned information commissioner although recorded that citizens have use mandatorily credit card and those who do not possess credit card and broad band cannot get the information since the website is not easily accessisible.

The High Court which is mentioned in the order I told the commissioner that the judgment is per in curium to the present appeal but Information commissioner omitted my arguments mentioned in clause (a) and (b ) and (c) above.

The information commissioner has not written anything about my arguments recorded why she is not agree with points which she has recorded and Delhi High Court judgment is applicable in the light of grounds recorded .

The Information commissioner put her words in my mouth although I haven't uttered anything about she put her own words in my mouth.

The learned Information commissioner took 78 days time to give decision which itself proves that she was sitting with prejudice mind and with the aim the Registrar.

I request you to make an inquiry in the present and direct the CIC to quash the order and refer the matter to full bench and also I request you to direct CIC to provide recording of the scheduled hearing before Full Bench and direct  to give ample opportunity of hearing.

The copy of order is as under

Central Information Commission

Room No. 305 B- Wing, August Kranti Bhawan,

Bhikaji Kama Place, New Delhi – 110066

CIC/SS/A/2012/001831

Order dated: 7.3.2013

Appellant : P.B Vaidya

Respondent: Registrar of Companies, Mumbai

Represented by:

Date of hearing: 18.12.2012

The appellant, Shri P.B Vaidya, filed an RTI application seeking date on which Latur

Water Supply Management was registered with the ROC-Mumbai, copy of certificate

of registration and details of shareholders and directors of the said Company. The

CPIO vide reply dated 19.7.2011 informed the appellant that the desired information

can be obtained from the Ministry's website www.mca.gov.in and further that the

Ministry of Corporate Affairs has already examined the subject matter relating to

furnishing of information under the RTI Act and opined that in view of the provision

of section 610 of Companies Act, 1956 read with Companies (Central Government's)

General Rules and Forms, 1956, the documents filed by the companies pursuant to

various provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 with ROC are to be treated as

"information in the public domain".

The appellant has submitted in his second appeal that the information on the website

is not easily accessible to many people as internet is not accessible everywhere and

that for obtaining certified copies the payment is routed through internet for which

one has to mandatorily use a credit card. The appellant has relied on the Hon'ble

Supreme Court Judgement in case of CBSE V. Aditya Bandhopadhaya and

Khanapuram Gandaiah V. Administrative Officer & Ors. During the hearing the

appellant has further submitted that the provisions of the Companies Act is contrary

to the RTI Act as there is no penalty provision in the Companies Act for not providing

the information and the cost and method of payment is also different from the

provisions of the RTI Act.

In the matter of Registrar of Companies Versus Dharmendre

Kumar Garg (W.P (c ) 11271/2009) , the Hon'ble Delhi High

Court has taken the following view:

"41. Firstly, I may notice that I do not find anything

inconsistent between the scheme provided under Section 610

of the Companies Act and the provisions of the RTI Act.

Merely because a different charge is collected for

providing information under Section 610 of the Companies

Act than that prescribed as the fee for providing

information under the RTI Act does not lead to an

inconsistency in the provisions of these two enactments.

Even otherwise, the provisions of the RTI Act would not

override the provision contained in Section 610 of the

Companies Act. Section 610 of the Companies Act is an

earlier piece of legislation. The said provision was

introduced in the Companies Act, 1956 at the time of its

enactment in the year 1956 itself. On the other hand, the

RTI Act is a much later enactment, enacted in the year

2005. The RTI Act is a general law/enactment which deals

with the right of a citizen to access information

available with a public authority, subject to the

conditions and limitations prescribed in the said Act. On

the other hand, Section 610 of the Companies Act is a

piece of special legislation, which deals specifically

with the right of any person to inspect and obtain records

i.e. information from the ROC. Therefore, the later

general law cannot be read or understood to have abrogated

the earlier special law."

In the present second appeal before the Commission, the appellant has raised a

contention that the provision of section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 is contrary to

the RTI Act, 2005. The said contention raised by the appellant cannot stand in view of

the fact that a detailed existing mechanism is already in place for obtaining the desired

information. The Commission finds no reason to interfere with the decision of the first

appellate authority.

Sushma Singh

(Information Commissioner)

Authenticated True Copy:

(DC Singh)

Deputy Registrar

1. Appellant :

Ravi Kumar Otwal,

CPJ 1/60, Near Dharampur Bus Stand,

New Seelampur,

Delhi- 110053

2. Public Information Officer &

Additional Deputy Commissioner

Delhi Police, North District,

Civil Lines,

Delhi – 110054

3. First Appellate Authority &

Dy. Commissioner of Police

Delhi Police, North District,

Civil Lines,

Delhi - 110054

Thanking you

Yours faithfully

Place:- Latur

Date:- 20 March2013                                                           signature of complainant

                                                                   (Prasad Bhalchandrarao Vaidya)

LogOut

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "HumJanenge Forum People's Right to Information, RTI Act 2005" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to HumJanenge+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.