Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Anil Kumar Singh vs Ministry Of Corporate Affairs on 11 March, 2026

                                                         CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/647773

                                        के   ीय सूचना आयोग
                             Central Information Commission
                                  बाबा गंगनाथ माग,मुिनरका
                              Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                                  नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/647773

Anil Kumar Singh                                                ... अपीलकता/Appellant

                                         VERSUS
                                          बनाम
CPIO: Investor Education &
Protection Fund Authority                                    ... ितवादीगण/Respondents
(Ministry of Corporate
Affairs), New Delhi

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 27.08.2023                  FA     : 24.09.2024           SA     : Nil.

CPIO : 17.09.2024                 FAO : 28.10.2024              Hearing : 09.03.2026


Date of Decision: 09.03.2026
                                            CORAM:
                                       Hon'ble Commissioner
                                          Shri P R Ramesh
                                           ORDER

1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.08.2023 seeking information on the following points:

1) How many online application for IEPF-5, received by the IEPF Authority in the month of March 2024.

2) How many of them approved and how many are rejected by the IEPF Authority till date?

2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 17.09.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-

CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/647773 "Reply: With reference to your RTI application dated 27.08.2024, it is to inform that question, and queries are not covered under the purview of Right to Information Act 2005"

3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 24.09.2024 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 28.10.2024 observed as under:-

2. The undersigned has gone through your appeal dated 24.09.2024, found that the reply given by the CPIO is in order in accordance with the provisions of Right to Information Act, 2005.

3. However, the undersigned ordered the CPIO to look into the matter. CPIO informed that information sought in RTI application is not readily available and further question and queries are not covered under the purview of Right to Information Act, 2005.

4. In view of the para no 2 & 3. your appeal is disposed off.

4. Aggrieved and dissatisfied, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated Nil.

Facts emerging in Course of Hearing:

Appellant: Not present Respondent: Shri Neelambuj, Dy. Director- participated in the hearing.

5. The Respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application is not available in their records. He averred that the Appellant has sought clarification which does not fall under the ambit of 'information' as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. He stated that the IEPFA is entrusted with the responsibility of administration of the Investor Education Protection Fund (IEPF), make refunds of shares, unclaimed dividends, matured deposits/debentures etc. to investors and to promote awareness among investors. He apprised the Page 2 of 4 CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/647773 Commission that monthly data is not maintained and yearly data is part of their Annual Report which is in public domain and can be easily accessed on their official website. A written submission dated 06.03.2026 reiterating aforementioned facts has been received from the CPIO and same has been taken on record for perusal.

Decision:

6. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the Appellant has sought information regarding the details of online application in form IEPF-5, received by the IEPF Authority. It is pertinent to mention that the annual details regarding the application in form IEPF-5 are already available in their Annual Report which is already available in public domain. It is noted that yearly data of number applications received, pending and approved is available in public domain. In the given circumstances, the Commission finds no requirement for intervention in this case under the RTI Act. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.

Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Sd/-

(P R Ramesh) (पी. आर. रमेश) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy Vivek Agarwal (िववेक अ वाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26107048 Addresses of the parties:

CIC/MOCAF/A/2024/647773

1. CPIO under RTI, Assistant Director & CPIO, Investor Education & Protection Fund Authority (Ministry of Corporate Affairs), Ground Floor, Jeevan Vihar Bhawan, 3--Parliament Street, New Delhi-110001.

2 Anil Kumar Singh Page 4 of 4 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-

Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)