“Is silence the answer?” says Respondent in the court of SEBI, Part 3.
With respect to query number 5, it was noted that the appellant sought information regarding action taken by SEBI after receiving documents of the company on 14th of January, 2020. It is understood that recovery proceedings have been initiated by SEBI against the company and its directors under Recovery Certificate no. Certificate No 2654_A.P No 5429 &amp; 5430 of 2019 (details available on the SEBI website under the link: “Enforcement” and sub–link “Recovery Proceedings”), which are ongoing. It is also understood that relevant information regarding recovery proceedings are made available on the SEBI website from time to time. With respect to first part of query number 6, it is observed that the appellant sought whether the letter referred therein, was responded to. Mr Amarjeet Singh did not agree with the respondent that the said query does not fall under the purview of information as defined under the RTI Act, since response to the query would be an answer either affirmative or negative, depending on the available records. Therefore, the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate answer. The respondent, in response to the query number 8, observed that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and hence cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. On consideration, it was found that the last part of the query “Is silence the answer?”, is in the nature of seeking clarification from the respondent. With respect to first part of the query “I prayed to your goodself to grant advance/ loan from my dues. Have you taken any decision on my genuine prayer?”, Mr Amarjeet Singh is of the opinion that the same warrants reconsideration since the appellant sought information regarding decision taken on his request to grant advance/loan from his dues. Therefore, the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate response. In view of these observations, Appellate Authority Mr Amarjeet Singh remitted the application dated April 14, 2021 to the respondent for reconsidering query number 1, first part of query number 6 and first part of query number 8, and to provide appropriate response within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of
Appeal No. 42921 dBEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42921 Swaminath Singha CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated April 14 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005against the said response dated May 07 2021. I have carefully considered the application the response and the appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. 2. Ground of appeal On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is aggrieved by the response provided by the respondent. The queries and the response provided thereto are discussed in the following paragraphs in light of the submissions made by the appellant. Before analysing the queries and the responses I note that the appellant being director of Apna Pariwar Agro Farming Developers India Ltd. was one of the noticees in the proceedings wherein the order dated May 3 2018 was passed and directions for refund of money were issued. 4. Query number 1 The appellant vide query number 1 sought the following information: “1. After receiving my speed post letter dated 13.1.21 have you answered If not you are requested to let me know the reason in the interest of law.” The respondent in response to the query informed that SEBI had received the said letter. The respondent also informed that as a defaulter in the matter an opportunity of personal hearing was granted to the appellant on January 1 2020. After the hearing considering the appellant’s request and on analysis of the documents submitted during the hearing the pension account was released on 06.02.2020 and it was also informed that no other account would be released. Further the appellant was advised to file an appeal Appeal No. 42921 before the Hon’ble SAT if aggrieved with the said decision of SEBI. The respondent informed that the recovery proceedings shall continue till the amount stated in the recovery notice is recovered. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent has informed that the letter dated January 13 2021 was received by SEBI. It is observed that the appellant sought whether the letter referred therein was responded to. On consideration I find that the response to the query would be an answer either affirmative or negative depending on the available records. Therefore the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate answer. Query numbers 2 5 6 and 7 The appellant sought the following information “2. Whether two decisions from SEBI & CBI on the very self same matter is lawful Whose decision should be followed as per law if the answer to the question is positive 5. What have you done after receiving all documents of the Apna Pariwar Co. on 14.01.2020 in recovering the dues All properties with landed properties have been taken by you. 6. After receiving my letter dated 27.4.2020 on 4.6.2020 have you answered Placing hold on R D A c for 7 years for Sr. Citizen after receiving my letter dated 27.4.21 was lawful or revenge The said A c will mature in September 2021. 7. Is it the official law not to respond to letters of any one The respondent in response to the query numbers 2 5 6 and 7 observed that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion and hence cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 9. On consideration I find that the query numbers 2 6 7 are in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion of the respondent which cannot be construed as an information available on record. In this regard I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBI held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to InformationAct the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. In view of the same I find that the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification or opinion under the RTI Act. 10. With respect to query number 5 I note that the appellant sought information regarding action taken by SEBI after receiving documents of the company on January 14 2020. It is understood that recovery proceedings have been initiated by SEBI against the company and its directors under Recovery Certificate Appeal No. 42921 no. Certificate No 2654_A.P No 5429 & 54319which are ongoing. It is also understood that relevant information regarding recovery proceedings are made available on the SEBI website from time to time. 11. With respect to first part of query number 6 it is observed that the appellant sought whether the letter referred therein was responded to. I do not agree with the respondent that the said query does not fall under the purview of information as defined under the RTI Act since response to the query would be an answer either affirmative or negative depending on the available records. Therefore the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate answer. 12. Query numbers 3 and 4 The appellant sought the following queries: “3. What is the time limit for placing hold on any account 4. You have freezed one accountin the year 2019. How long it will be kept freezed Who will bear the loss of interest ” 13. The respondent in response to the said queries observed that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion and hence cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However it was informed that the recovery proceedings shall continue till the amount stated in the recovery notice is recovered. 14. On perusal of the queries and the response provided thereto I agree with the observation of the respondent that the said queries are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion. Accordingly I find that the respondent did not have any obligation to provide such clarification or opinion under the RTI Act. Notwithstanding the same I note that the respondent has informed regarding continuation of the recovery proceedings till the recovery of the amount mentioned in the recovery notice. In view of the same I do not find any deficiency in the response. 15. Query number 8 The appellant vide query number 8 sought the following information “8. …I prayed to your goodself to grant advance loan from my dues. Have you taken any decision on my genuine prayer Is silence the answer ” 16. The respondent in response to the query observed that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification opinion and hence cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) Appeal No. 42921 of the RTI Act. On consideration I find that the last part of the query “Is silence the answer ” is in the nature of seeking clarification from the respondent. With respect to first part of the query “I prayed to your goodself to grant advance loan from my dues. Have you taken any decision on my genuine prayer ” I am of the opinion that the same warrants reconsideration since the appellant sought information regarding decision taken on his request to grant advance loan from his dues. Therefore the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate response. In view of these observations I remit the application dated April 14 2021 to the respondent for reconsidering query number 1 first part of query number 6 and first part of query number 8 and to provide appropriate response within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Place: Mumbai Date: July 07 2021 AMARJEET SINGH APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 