CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000814
Dated, the 27th January, 2010.
Appellant : Shri Dushyant M. Vyas
Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
This matter was heard partly through videoconferencing (VC) on
21.01.2010 in the presence of both parties. Appellant was present at
NIC VC facility at Mumbai, while the respondents represented by
Ms.Jyoti Rathod, Manager were present at the Commission’s New Delhi
office, from where the Commission conducted its hearing.
2. Appellant stated that recently he was interested in receiving
replies of the public authority in respect of his queries at Sl.Nos.4, 5,
11, 12 and 20 contained in his RTI-application dated 10.08.2009. These
queries read as follows:-
“4) Whether Transferees had provided “Bank Attestation”
signature proof of Transferor? Please reply in YES OR NO?
5) When Transferees had provided Bank Attestation Signature
Proof of Transferor? To whom? Please specify the date,
month and year? Confirm with Transfer Agent and
Company? What is the Transfer Agent and Company’s
response in this regard? Please also reply in detail.
11) What is the “STATUS” of 40,000 Equity Shares as on today?
12) At present i.e. As on today original 40,000 Equity shares
are in whose possession? Whether it is in company’s
possession or lying with Transfer Agent? Please specify the
name of “RESTRAINER”? AND Under what Powers & Law
shares are retained? Since when? Please reply in detail.
20) How much time period lapse between Transfer of Shares
date and to matter reaches to the B.C.C. Court? Please
specify the completed months and days of lapse of time
period?”
AT-27012010-14.doc
Page 1 of 2
3. On hearing the submissions of the respondents and the appellant
and perusing the records, it is directed that in similar matters in the
past Commission had, in the light of the Delhi High Court decision in
Poorna Prajna Public School Vs. Central Information Commission in
W.P.(C) No.7265 of 2007; Date of Decision: 25.09.2009, directed that
CPIO/holder-of-the information should access the information held in
the hands of a private third-party as per the laws under which the
public authority have had control over such private third-party, and
provide the information to an applicant.
4. Accordingly, it is directed that CPIO act under Section 2(f) of the
RTI Act to obtain the information from the private third-party and
provide it to the appellant within three weeks of the receipt of this
order.
5. Appeal accordingly disposed of.
6. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-27012010-14.doc
Page 2 of 2