This blog post explores the intersection of corporate accountability, the Right to Information (RTI), and the challenges faced by citizens when regulatory bodies—specifically the Registrar of Companies (RoC) Maharashtra—appear to deflect responsibility for consumer grievances.

---

The Accountability Gap: RTI, RoC Maharashtra, and the Fight Against Corporate Negligence

In a robust democracy, the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005, is more than just a procedural law; it is a weapon against corruption and a shield for the common citizen. However, a recent case involving Yogi M. P. Singh and the Registrar of Companies (RoC) Mumbai highlights a troubling trend: the systemic closing of grievances without substantive action, leaving citizens trapped between unresponsive corporations and indifferent regulators.

1. The Core Conflict: HostGator India and Consumer Defiance

The genesis of this dispute lies in a simple consumer grievance—a non-refund of application money by HostGator India (Endurance International Group India Pvt Ltd). Despite the National Consumer Helpline (NCH) sending multiple reminders (including Docket No. 6479820), the company reportedly refused to respond.

This raises a fundamental question of governance: How can a company operate on Indian soil if it feels empowered to ignore the official inquiries of the Department of Consumer Affairs? When private entities defy government-backed platforms, the burden of enforcement shifts to the regulator—the RoC.

2. The RoC’s Role: Regulation or Redirection?

Under Section 206(4) of the Companies Act, 2013, the RoC is vested with significant powers to inspect, inquire, and recommend investigations into companies suspected of fraudulent or unlawful conduct.¹

In this instance, the grievance was escalated to the RoC Maharashtra (under the Prime Minister’s Office Public Grievance portal, PMOPG/E/2025/0007391). However, the response from the RoC’s office was a classic exercise in bureaucratic redirection. The authority closed the case with the remark that “matters related to delays in refunds... fall within the purview of the concerned company and consumer grievance redressal authorities.”

3. The RTI Strategy: Piercing the Bureaucratic Veil

Dissatisfied with the “arbitrary and inconsistent” closure of his grievance, the applicant filed a targeted RTI (ROCMU/R/E/25/00026). This RTI is a masterclass in demanding transparency. It seeks:

• Accountability for Decisions: The names and designations of the staff members who chose to close the grievance.
• Legal Basis for Non-Action: A request for any circular or memo that “privileges” a company like HostGator to ignore government emails.
• Structural Transparency: A complete list of Class 1 and Class 2 officers within the RoC Maharashtra to identify the chain of command.
• Procedural Clarity: Access to the specific mechanism the RoC uses to redress “Non-Refund of application money,” an option explicitly provided on the PG portal.²

4. The Crisis of Corruption and Backlog

The struggle for information is compounded by the current state of the State Information Commission of Maharashtra. With a staggering backlog of over 94,000 second appeals as of late 2024, justice is often delayed to the point of denial.

While the Chief Information Commissioner, Sumit Mullick, has initiated “special drives” to clear cases, the underlying issue remains: if the initial grievance redressal at the RoC level is flawed or collusive, the entire weight of the RTI machinery becomes a secondary battleground for the citizen.

5. Why This Matters for the Indian Investor

The “collusion” alleged by the applicant is not just a personal frustration; it is a warning sign for the corporate ecosystem. When a regulator refuses to act against a company that ignores government reminders, it fosters an environment of regulatory negligence. This undermines investor trust and suggests that loopholes are being exploited to avoid scrutiny.

6. The Path Forward: Demanding Action

The appeal (DCOYA/E/A/25/0000109) now sits with B. Mishra (ROC). The demand is simple: a report must be sought from the erring company, and if they fail to respond, the RoC must exercise its statutory powers to initiate civil or criminal proceedings.

Transparency is not a favor granted by the government; it is a right. The outcome of this case will serve as a litmus test for whether the RoC Maharashtra acts as a watchdog for public interest or a shield for corporate misconduct.

This highlights a systemic failure in the Indian administrative machinery often referred to as “The Ping-Pong Protocol.” When central departments and regulatory bodies like the RoC act as mere “post offices”—redirecting citizens back to the very entities they are complaining about—they are effectively abdicating their statutory duties.

Under the Companies Act, 2013, the Registrar of Companies (RoC) is not an advisory body; it is a regulatory and enforcement authority.

The Gap Between “Advice” and “Action”

The core of your grievance lies in the difference between a department’s advisory role and its statutory obligation. Here is how the law is being bypassed:

Citizen’s Expectation	Departmental Response (The Reality)	Statutory Power (The Law)
Enforcement: The RoC should penalize the company for non-responsiveness.	Direction: “Please approach the Consumer Court or the company’s helpdesk.”	Section 206(4): Power to call for information and carry out an inquiry if business is conducted for a fraudulent purpose.
Accountability: CPIO should explain why the grievance was closed without a resolution.	Evasion: Closing the case with “Remarks” that claim the matter is outside their purview.	Section 4(1)(d) of RTI: Requirement to provide reasons for administrative or quasi-judicial decisions to affected persons.
Transparency: Information on who took the decision to close the file.	Anonymity: Providing generic office details instead of specific officer designations involved in the closure.	RTI Act, 2005: Citizens have the right to know the names and designations of public servants performing official duties.

Why “Advice” is Legally Insufficient

When a public authority like the RoC Mumbai receives a complaint about a company (like HostGator/Endurance International) refusing to refund money and ignoring the National Consumer Helpline (NCH), the RoC has the “Reason to Believe” required to trigger an inquiry.

1. Refusal to Respond is a Red Flag: If a company ignores a government-backed agency (NCH), it is prima facie evidence of a breakdown in corporate governance.
2. Regulatory Negligence: By advising the citizen to go to court instead of using its own powers to “Inspect and Inquire,” the RoC is essentially granting the company a “license to ignore” the law.
3. Collusion Concerns: As you noted in your appeal, when officials repeatedly protect companies by closing files under the guise of “jurisdiction,” it creates a perception of collusion that undermines the Ease of Doing Business and Investor Protection frameworks in India.

Strategies to Force “Action” Over “Advice”

Since the CPIO has already provided an unsatisfactory remark, your next steps should focus on the failure of duty:

• Invoke Section 18 of the RTI Act: File a complaint directly with the Information Commission stating that the CPIO has provided “misleading” or “incomplete” information by not disclosing the names of the officers who closed the grievance.
• Write to the MCA Secretary: Escalate the matter to the Secretary of the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, highlighting that the RoC Mumbai is refusing to exercise its powers under Section 206 of the Companies Act, despite evidence of corporate non-compliance.
• The “Deemed Refusal” Argument: In your second appeal, argue that the “Advice” provided is a “Deemed Refusal” of information and a denial of the citizen’s right to see the regulator perform its legal duty.

Based on your filing and the legal jurisdiction of the matter, here are the specific application IDs, contact numbers, and web links for the authorities and the company involved in your grievance.

1. Key Application Identifiers

• RTI Registration Number: ROCMU/R/E/25/00026 (Filed with RoC Mumbai)
• Public Grievance Number: PMOPG/E/2025/0007391 (Ministry: PMO)
• Appeal Number: DCOYA/E/A/25/0000109 (Department of Consumer Affairs)
• NCH Docket Number: 6479820 (National Consumer Helpline reference)

---

2. Registrar of Companies (RoC) Maharashtra – Mumbai

This is the primary regulatory body responsible for the oversight of the company you are challenging.

• Concerned Officer: Sh. B. Mishra (Registrar of Companies)
• Nodal Officer (RTI): Pranav Agja
• Email: roc.mumbai@mca.gov.in / pranav.agja@nic.in
• Telephone: 022-22812627 / 022-22812645
• Address: 100, Everest, Marine Drive, Mumbai, Maharashtra – 400002.
• Official Website: www.mca.gov.in

---

3. National Consumer Helpline (NCH)

The NCH is the mediation body that has already sent two reminders to the company without success.

• Toll-Free Numbers: 1915 or 1800-11-4000
• WhatsApp Support: 8800001915
• Grievance Portal: consumerhelpline.gov.in
• Email: nch-ca@gov.in

---

4. HostGator India (Endurance International Group India Pvt Ltd)

This is the entity against which the non-refund and non-responsiveness complaint is directed.

• Registered Address: Unit No. 401, 4th Floor, IT Building 3, Nesco IT Park, Nesco Complex, Western Express Highway, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400063.
• GST Number: 27AAECD1043M1ZP
• Corporate Identity Number (CIN): Can be verified on the MCA portal using the company name.

---

5. Critical Web Links for Further Action

• MCA Grievance Cell: Create Service Related Complaint (To escalate the RoC’s refusal to act).
• RTI Online Portal: rtionline.gov.in (To track your application or file a First Appeal).
• CPGRAMS Portal: pgportal.gov.in (To track the PMO grievance status).
• E-Daakhil: edaakhil.nic.in (If you choose to file a formal case in the Consumer Commission online).

Would you like me to draft a strong rejoinder for your Appeal (DCOYA/E/A/25/0000109) arguing that the “advice” provided by the RoC is a failure to exercise statutory power under Section 206?