Claim of Ownership vs Being-in-Sub Judice: An RTI To The Ministry of Corporate Affairs

Posted on 09/01/2024 (GMT 13:42 hrs)

Updated on 07/03/2024 (GMT 07:50 hrs)

Being bored with ambiguous and superficial answers to our previous RTIs (especially this⤡ one) to various ministries, departments and other authorities, we have decided to put the question in our next RTI application in an abstract manner, as it is found in mathematical logic and across various subjects like Economics.

Thus, OBMA filed an RTI application on 22.12.2023 to the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, asking the following question:

Can company X occupy or acquire company Y,  especially when the case on the ownership of Y is sub judice in the domestic court of law?

If the answer to the above question is NO, while X still claims ownership of Y (by taking blanket stay order from the apex court), is it not a case of trespassing and/or adverse possession of Y by violating the Tort Law? Please advice me in this regard by supplying the necessary information as per the existing corporate laws.

Given below is the RTI application:

As remarked earlier, without explicitly mentioning the underlying fact of the DHFL scam, OBMA activists have decided to use free abstract variables such as “X, Y” in order to elicit the required information from the concerned authority, following the response to which it could be used as a tool for resistance against the manufactured financial abuse of the DHFL victims.

The REPLY to this came from the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government of India, on 09/01/2024, which stated the following:

Reference to the captioned RTI application, your kind attention is invited decision of the Honble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.6454 Of 2011. It is to state that a public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences. It is also not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant. The information asked is in a nature of seeking legal interpretation of statutory provisions and thus not an information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

However, you may visit the said link:- https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks.html for the relevant Companies Act/ Rules/Circular/Notification.

As directed in the RTI “reply” (whereby they are playing safe!), we opened the given URL, only to find the following:

Oh no! Well, it seems that both the RTI and the Government Websites are celebrating their gala holidays!

RTI DECEASED: THE STATE OF DEMOCRATIC  UNFREEDOM

They are taking inspiration from the megalomaniac-narcissistic King Liar⤡‘s enjoyment at the cost of the taxpayers’ money:

N.B. We, as a pressure group, have filed more RTIs regarding DHFL Scam to continue our uninterrupted non-violent civil disobedience movement:

a) Asking SEBI and Supreme Court of India why the Wadhawan brothers’ full repayment proposals in the DHFL case were not considered.

b) Asking SEBI whether Fixed Deposit Holders can make use of the money in SEBI Investor Protection Fund.

c) Asking Supreme Court of India about the sub judice status of the cases related to the DHFL Scam.

UPDATE (12/01/2024):

We made a first appeal in reply to our RTI Application, the text of which is given as follows:

I am preferring first appeal on the grounds: As per Section 2(f) of The Right To Information Act (2005), opinions and advices are also information. I am not seeking your personal opinion, rather, I am seeking legal opinions and advices of your public authority regarding my RTI. So, you are bound to give me categorical reply.

Do not wrongly refer the concerned RTI Act (2005) after intentionally deleting the words opinions and advices from Section 2(f), according to your whims. It is pertinent to again mention here that I am not a tech-savvy person, so please give me direct reply. 

UPDATE (07/03/2024):

On 20/02/2024, we received a reply from the FAA on our First Appeal, the text of which is given as follows:

RTI Appeal No. MOCAF/A/E/24/00005,

Name of Appellant Mr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay.
The present RTI appeal MOCAF/A/E/24/00005 has been preferred by the appellant Mr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay against the CPIO’s reply dated 09/01/2024 stating that the CPIO has not provided the details and also stated the ground of appeal as “Provided Incomplete, Misleading or False Information”. Pursuant to the appeal, I have perused the appeal and the reply furnished by the CPIO. Such perusal reveals that the RTI request dated 22/12/2023 was received by CPIO on 22/12/2023 and CPIO furnished reply to the same on 09/01/2024 .

2. Further, the information sought by the appellant in his RTI application requires interpretation of various law and hence is in the nature of seeking opinion or advice as such the same do not fall under the definition of “information” under the Act and hence the reply of CPIO is in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. The RTI applicant’s query and reply of CPIO are as under:-
“Gist of RTI query:- Can company X occupy or acquire company Y, especially when the case on the ownership of Y is sub judice in the domestic court of law? If the answer to the above question is NO, while X still claims ownership of Y (by taking blanket stay order from the apex court), is it not a case of trespassing and/or adverse possession of Y by violating the Tort Law? Please advice me in this regard by supplying the necessary information as per the existing corporate laws.

CPIO’s reply:- Reference to the captioned RTI application, your kind attention is invited decision of the Honble Supreme Court in CBSE v. Aditya Bandopadhyay, Civil Appeal No.6454 Of 2011. It is to state that a public authority is not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences. It is also not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant. The information asked is in a nature of seeking legal interpretation of statutory provisions and thus not an information under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. However, you may visit the said link:- https://www.mca.gov.in/content/mca/global/en/acts-rules/ebooks.html for the relevant Companies Act/ Rules/Circular/Notification.

3. Appellant has filed the present appeal stating that the CPIO has not provided the details.

4. From the question raised in the RTI application, it is apparent that the query raised by the RTI applicant in RTI Application is in the nature of asking question, which is not information within the meaning of section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Moreover, the CPIO can furnish only those information which is available and existing and not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and interpretation of statutes. Hence, I am of the considered view that the CPIO has rightly replied to the appellant. Therefore, the appeal does not call for interference and accordingly disposed as dismissed.

(Atma Sah)
Joint Director, MCA
First Appellate Authority
20/02/2024

1. Mr. Debaprasad Bandyopadhyay, Anekanta, 23/1,, Joy Narayan Banerjee Lane,, Baranagar, Kolkata, Pin:700036
2. CPIO, CL-V section, MCA,
3. Guard file

Even the reply of the FAA does not tell us anything new other than the self-same “copy-paste” of the usual reply, which further proves that the authorities are POSSIBLY seeking to hide something to protect the vested interests of the current ruling party!