“Response to the query would be an answer either affirmative or negative, depending on the available records…”: Appellate Authority, SEBI, Part 3.
Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 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…”. After perusal of the 2nd query and the response provided thereto. It is observed that the appellant sought whether the letter referred therein, was received by SEBI. Appellate authority 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. It was noted that the appellant, vide query number 3, inter alia, sought details of letters sent by him through Speed Port/ Registered Post/ emails. Mr Singh was of the view that if the appellant has sent the letters, he should have copy of the same along with details of the date sent. It is also understood that the date of delivery of the letter sent by speed post/ registered post, can also be tracked. It was noted that the information was already in the possession of the citizen cannot be said to be “held” by the public authority. In this context, reference is made to the matter of Shri S.P. Goyal vs. Shri Pragati Kumar &amp; Ors. (order dated January 24, 2008), wherein the Hon’ble CIC held that “Further, the obligation of a respondent extends only to providing information which it “holds” or controls in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. If it can be established through evidence that a party/ applicant himself possesses an information which he has sought from a public authority, such information can be denied to him. This appellant has already been provided the judgement dated 30.3.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Authority. The information, therefore, is already in appellant’s possession and cannot therefore be said to be “held”-much less “exclusively held”-by the public authority in terms of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act.”. In view of these observations, it was remitted the application dated 2nd of April, 2021 to the respondent for reconsidering query number 2, and to provide appropriate response within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order.
Appeal No. 42921 BEFORE 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 02 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 in his application referred to letter No. F.No.13 02 …. PM dated September 24 2019 from Smt. Tamana Sinha Deputy Director as per direction of Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman Hon’ble Sinance Minister. The appellant also sought the following information: “1. Are you the Hon’ble Executive Director of SEBI 2. Have you received the letter as ventilated in the reference above If yes please mention the date and time of receiving 3. How many letters have you received from me through speed post Regd post emails Please mention the date and time of receiving. 4. Have you responded to any of the letters emails etc. Please mentioned the same accordingly. 5. Have you seen the Sl. No. 19(1197217) dt. 10.7.2019 of the letter as mentioned in the Ref above 6. Today is 626 days have you sent any information to the Hon’ble Finance Minister in respect of your compliance of the most urgent letter Appeal No. 42921 7. What is the time limit of “Most urgent” matter in the constitution of India 8. Have you taken all the landed properties of the Aapna Pariwar Agro Farming Development India Ltd. 9. What is being done with the said properties Have you seen the Resolution of the Full body Directors dt. 14.5.2014 where it is mentioned Swaminath Singha was a Director in paper only 10. Should I request your Honour to withdraw the bars as placed on my Accounts 11. Do you follow the Lydford Law Would you allow a citizen of India to live in the light of Article 21 of the Constitution of India ” The respondent in response to the query numbers 1 to 11 observed that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion and accordingly cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 6. Query numbers 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and 11 I perused the query numbers 1 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 and 11. On consideration I agree with the observation of the respondent that the queries are in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion of the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. I find that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 f) of the RTI Act. Consequently the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limitedwherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBII note that the Hon’ble CIC held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to Information RTI) Act 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 said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 7. Query number 2 I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. It is observed that the appellant sought whether the letter referred therein was received by SEBI. 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. 8. Query number 3 I note that the appellant vide query number 3 inter alia sought details of letters sent by him through Speed Port Registered Post emails. I am of the view that if the appellant has sent the letters he should have copy of the same along with details of the date sent. It is also understood that the date of delivery of the letter sent by speed post registered post can also be tracked. I note that the information Appeal No. 42921 which is already in the possession of the citizen cannot be said to be “held” by the public authority. In this context reference is made to the matter of Shri S.P. Goyal vs. Shri Pragati Kumar & Ors.wherein the Hon’ble CIC held that “Further the obligation of a respondent extends only to providing information which it “holds” or controls in terms of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. If it can be established through evidence that a party applicant himself possesses an information which he has sought from a public authority such information can be denied to him. This appellant has already been provided the judgement dated 30.3.2007 of the Income Tax Appellate Authority. The information therefore is already in appellant’s possession and cannot therefore be said to be “held” much less “exclusively held” by the public authority in terms of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act.” In view of these observations I am of the view that the respondent is not obliged to provide the information sought by the appellant. In view of these observations I remit the application dated April 02 2021 to the respondent for reconsidering query number 2 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 