Special statutory access to company records prevails over RTI disclosure, and penalty requires absence of reasonable cause.

Information already made accessible through the special inspection and certified-copy mechanism under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 was treated as being in the statutory public domain and not as information separately required to be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005; the petitioners' position was upheld. Penalty proceedings under Section 20(1) of the RTI Act were also found unwarranted because the denial rested on an arguable legal basis supported by an administrative circular and prior CIC views, so it could not be characterised as mala fide or without reasonable cause. The impugned CIC orders were quashed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether information relating to documents filed with the Registrar of Companies, which is accessible under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 on payment of prescribed fee, can also be demanded under the Right to Information Act, 2005. (ii) Whether the Central Information Commission was justified in directing issuance of notice for penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Issue (i): Whether information relating to documents filed with the Registrar of Companies, which is accessible under Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 on payment of prescribed fee, can also be demanded under the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 provides a specific statutory mechanism by which any person may inspect or obtain certified copies of company documents on payment of prescribed fees. The information in question was already placed in the statutory public domain through that mechanism. The definition of the right to information under Section 2(j) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 is confined to information accessible under that Act which is held by or under the control of a public authority. Information which the public authority has already statutorily made available for access through a special mechanism cannot be treated as information exclusively held or controlled by it for the purpose of the Right to Information Act. The later general enactment does not displace the earlier special law, and the two regimes operate in parallel without inconsistency.

Conclusion: The information covered by Section 610 of the Companies Act, 1956 was not required to be furnished under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and the petitioners' stand was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the Central Information Commission was justified in directing issuance of notice for penalty under Section 20(1) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

Analysis: The petitioners had relied on an administrative circular and on earlier decisions of the Central Information Commission supporting the view that the requested material was outside the reach of the Right to Information Act. In those circumstances, the denial of information could not be treated as mala fide or without reasonable cause. Penalty under Section 20(1) is attracted only where the conduct is without reasonable cause, mala fide, or otherwise of the kind specifically contemplated by the provision. On the facts, the show-cause direction for penalty was unwarranted.

Conclusion: The direction for issuance of penalty notice was not justified and could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, and the impugned orders of the Central Information Commission were quashed.

Ratio Decidendi: Information made accessible through a distinct special statutory mechanism and already placed in the public domain is not necessarily information held by or under the control of the public authority for purposes of the Right to Information Act, and penalty cannot be imposed absent mala fides or absence of reasonable cause.

---