Central Information Commission
Rohan Nahar vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 8 July, 2021
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क ीय सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका,
नरका नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/MOCAF/A/2019/659478+
CIC/MOCAF/A/2020/665888
In the matter of:
Rohan Nahar
... Appellant
VS
DGM & CPIO
Investor Education and Protection Fund Authority
Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Jeevan Vihar Building, 3, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110001
...Respondent
File No. : 659478 665888 RTI application filed on : 06/10/2019 02/12/2019 CPIO replied on : 17/10/2019 31/12/2019 First appeal filed on : 30/10/2019 18/01/2020 First Appellate Authority order : 28/11/2019 11/03/2020 Second Appeal dated : 02/12/2019 11/03/2020 Date of Hearing : 08/07/2021 Date of Decision : 08/07/2021 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Deepmala Bagri AD & CPIO -present over phone Information Sought in File No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2019/659478:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. What is the maximum time frame (No. of days) taken by the IEPF Authorities to credit the Shares into the Shareholder's Demat Account, if all the papers are intact and all No Objection Certificates have been received from RTA/Company to release the Shares.1
2. What is the maximum time frame (No. of days) taken by the IEPF Authorities to credit the Dividend to Shareholder's Bank Account, if all the papers are intact and all No Objection Certificates have been received from RTA/The Corporate Company to release the Dividend.
Information Sought in File No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2020/665888:
The appellant has sought the following information:
1. If a Shareholder expires whose Shares have been transferred to IEPF and subsequently, if his family has moved to a new address, then while filing IEPF application, which address has to be entered (Old or new one) and whose name is to filled (either Shareholder's name or his Legal heir(s) name).
2. In a Joint holding, where Shares have been transferred to IEPF - if one of the joint holder expires, and the other one is alive, then whether the IEPF Application has to be entered with both the holder(s) name or only of the surviving holder.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant failed to attend the audio hearing. His staff informed over phone that due to some medical emergency he is unavailable for the hearing. The notice for the hearing was however duly served vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED500560335IN on 15.06.2021.
In the second appeal, the appellant had drawn attention to the fact that information should be provided in public interest. He drew attention to the fact that the information was refused merely because it was in question form. He also relied upon a decision of the CIC - CIC/SG/A/2008 /00347/00277 dated 09.02.2009 which was applicable in his case.
The CPIO reiterated the contents of the replies of both the CPIO & FAA as well as the written submissions dated 18.06.2021.
In case no. 665888, the FAA had asked the CPIO to provide the information , who then directed the appellant to the website and also provided a further reply dated 18.03.2020.
2Observations:
The Commission took note of the fact that due to some medical emergency the appellant was not able to attend the audio hearing. It was therefore decided to adjudicate these two appeals on merit.
It is a fact that the CPIO refused to provide the information stating that the information sought was in question form whereas some of the points could have been provided. The FAA's order of 11.03.2020 was also a very irregular order as it stated that the CPIO had provided the available information, which was not the case as it had been denied as not being covered under the RTI Act, and there was also a direction given to the CPIO to provide the available information. This was indeed a confusing reply. However, thereafter, a further reply dated 18.03.2020 was provided to the appellant wherein the information sought was given and the website with FAQs was informed , where as per the CPIO's submissions during the hearing , all information is available therein. The CPIO also reiterated the contents of the written submissions dated 18.06.2021.
Decision:
Keeping in view the above observations, it is clear that all the information available has been given, though delayed. No further action is warranted in this case. The respondent is however warned to remain extremely careful with regard to providing proper, timely replies in future.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
वनजा एन.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) सरना सूचना आयु ) Information Commissioner (सू Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स यािपत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के . असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 3