Central Information Commission
Subhash Chandra Agarwal vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 22 December, 2020
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/MOCAF/A/2019/110196
In the matter of:
Subhash Chandra Agrawal
... Appellant
VS
CPIO / Sr. Accounts Officer,
IEPF Authority, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,
Ground Floor, Jeevan Vihar Building,
3-Sansad Marg, New Delhi- 110001
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 27/08/2018 CPIO replied on : 01/10/2018 First appeal filed on : 08/10/2018 First Appellate Authority order : 17/10/2018 Second Appeal filed on : 07/03/2019 Date of Hearing : 10/12/2020 Date of Decision : 21/12/2020 The following were present: Appellant : Heard over phone
Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, Junior Technical Officer & representative of the CPIO, present over intra VC.
Information Sought:
The appellant had made certain submissions with regard to conversion of physical securities into demat form, simplification of procedure for claiming securities and dividend amount from IEPF, disclosure of the information with regard to the shares and other amounts transferred to IEPF, etc. In the said context, he has sought the following information:
1. Provide the information together with all related correspondence/file-
notings/documents etc. on each aspect of the submissions made by the 1 appellant, as stated above, either by the Ministry or the concerned ones where the said submissions might have been forwarded
2. Provide the information on the action taken with regard to common forms/procedure/requirements etc for all listed companies for different aspects of DEMAT of shares held in physical forms including common format for affidavits etc. in case of name-change/signature- mismatch/address-change etc.
3. Provide the complete information on action taken for DEMAT of shares in case of non-listed companies
4. Provide the information on action-taken for DEMAT of other securities like debentures, etc. both for listed and non-listed companies.
5. And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 1,2,5,7, 8, 10, 15 and 16 as the CPIO had stated that the information is not being maintained in the form sought. He submitted that the CPIO may be directed to provide the information in whatever form it is available. He also submitted that after transfer of the First Appeal to IEPF, no order was passed by the Appellate Authority. He also submitted that there should be a mechanism where the list of all those stake holders who have failed to encash the dividend warrants should be placed on the website of the IEPF so that such people who had lost track of their investments will be able to claim their unpaid dividend and the matter is of larger public interest.
The representative of the PIO from IEPF submitted that he was neither prepared for the case nor could submit the written submissions in advance as the intimation of the hearing was received from Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) only one day before the date of hearing and it was not possible for them to prepare for the hearing. He thus prayed for adjournment of the case.
The Commission is, however, not inclined to adjourn the case due to paucity of time and as no other case could be fixed for hearing at such short notice. In the light of the huge pendency of second appeals and complaints in the Commission it would not be prudent to adjourn the case at the last minute. However, in the interest of justice and to provide an equal opportunity to the CPIO to defend the case, the representative of the CPIO was directed to file their written submissions latest by 11.12.2020 which will be taken on record and in case no submissions are received by that time, the case will be decided on merits.
2On 11.12.2020 at 02.00 p.m. the CPIO filed his written submissions through link in which he had stated that whatever information was available with them, the same was supplied to the appellant 01.10.2018.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO on points no. 1,2,5,7, 8, 10, 15 and 16 of the RTI application as the CPIO had stated that the information is not being maintained in the form sought. The Commission is in agreement with the contention of the appellant that if the information was not available in that form as sought by the appellant, the CPIO was supposed to provide the information in whatever form it was available. The CPIO, IEPF is therefore directed to provide complete information to the appellant on points no. 1, 2, 5,10, 15 & 16 in the form available . With regard to points no. 7 & 8, the information sought constitutes personal information of many third parties and the same is exempted from disclosure u/s 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no relief can be given to the appellant on these points. It is also noted that in the latest submissions of the CPIO, some additional information was given. Since a copy of the same was not supplied to the appellant, the CPIO is directed to provide a copy of the written submissions to the appellant as well.
Among many other submissions raised by the appellant, it is noted that the appellant has raised an issue of dividend encashment for such people who had lost track of their investments. He had prayed that a list of all those stake holders who have failed to encash the dividend warrants and have lost track of the same should be placed on the website so that they or their family may claim the unpaid dividends. The Commission noted that undoubtedy the matter is of public interest as there are numerous people who lose track of the funds owed to them or the Company/financial institution might have failed to locate the Shareholder for dividend payment as contact and bank details change over the years but are not updated with the company, some people are not aware of the investments made by their parents and do not possess the complete records of those investments and even the nominees and legal heirs may fail to stake a claim if they are not aware of such assets. However, the Commission noted that the matter being related to a particular subject and technical in nature, without knowing the pros and cons of placing such a list on the website and without hearing the experts who deal with the subject extensively, it would be unjustified to give any direction to the respondent authority. It is further noted that there would be some purpose for not placing such lists on the website and since the CPIO himself was not present during the hearing, the Commission was not able to ascertain whether the purpose of not placing the list on the website is more important or vice versa. Hence, at this 3 stage it will not be prudent to issue any direction to the respondent organisation .
Decision:
In view of the above, the CPIO is directed to provide a revised reply to the appellant on points no. 1,2,5,10,15 &16 as available, and also send a copy of the written submissions dated 11.12.2020 to the appellant, as sent to the Commission. This direction is to be complied with within a period of 15 days from the date of issue of this order under intimation to the Commission.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4