“Appellate Authority is of the opinion that no interference of this forum is warranted…”: SEBI, Part 3.
On perusal of the first part of the query, it was noted that the respondent has categorically informed that the copy of the order dated 31st of October, 2018 passed in the matter of SICCL, has been forwarded to Director General &amp; Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, for information. It was noted that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Accordingly, no deficiency was found in the response by Appellate Authority. Further, on perusal of the second part of the query and the response provided thereto, Mr Baiwar agreed with the observation of the respondent that the same is in the nature of enquiry/ inquisition. It was found that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. In view of the said observations, no deficiency was found in the response by Mr Baiwar. The respondent, in response to query numbers 4 and 5, observed that the queries are in the nature of enquiry/inquisition and thus cannot be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. On consideration, it was agreed that the response provided by the respondent and Mr Baiwar also found that the same is that nature of seeking clarification/opinion of the respondent. In this context, reference is made to the matter of Parvinder Singh vs. Public Information Officer under Right to Information (Order dated July 19, 2021), wherein the Hon’ble CIC held that, “12. Nevertheless, Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings observes the information sought by the appellant is clarificatory in nature and thus, doesn’t qualify as information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, PIO is required to provide information as available with them in form of records, documents, memos, emails, opinions, advises, press releases, circulars, orders, log books, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any form and not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of clarifications, hypothetical &amp; futuristic queries.” In view of the said observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.
Appeal No. 43521 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43521 Dahyalal Ganeshbhai Panchal CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 03 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005against the said response dated June 01 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. Grounds of appeal On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply to query numbers 1 3 4 and 5. In view of the submissions of the appellant I am only dealing with the said queries in this appeal. 3. Query number 1 The appellant vide query number 1 inter alia sought the following information pertaining to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.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. Accordingly I am of the opinion that no interference of this forum is warranted at this stage. 7. Query number 3 The appellant vide query number 3 inter alia sought the following information 3. With respect to his complaint number 1…7 2020 filed before CID crime office Gandhinagar the appellant sought information whether investigation in this office has been entrusted by SEBI. If the same is entrusted by SEBI whether an inquiry is made in writing by SEBI about the progress of this investigation. The respondent in response to query number 3 informed that SEBI in compliance with the order dated October 31 2018 had forwarded the aforesaid order to the Director General & Inspector General of Police West Bengal for information. The respondent also informed that the query with regard to whether there is a provision for sending a reminder is in the nature of enquiry inquisition and thus cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 9. On perusal of the first part of the query I note that the respondent has categorically informed that the copy of the order dated October 31 2018 passed in the matter of SICCL has been forwarded to Director General & Inspector General of Police West Bengal for information. I note that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 10. Further on perusal of the second part of the query and the response provided thereto I agree with the observation of the respondent that the same is in the nature of enquiry inquisition. I find that the said Appeal No. 43521 queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2of the RTI Act. In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 11. Query numbers 4 and 5 The appellant vide query numbers 4 and 5 inter alia sought the following 4. Whether SEBI can hand over the investigation against this company to the CBI to help in getting the refund of the deposits of the investors stuck in the company. 5. Whether SEBI can file a case against SICCL in the Economic Offence Bench of the Supreme Court or in the Economic Offence Bench of any High Court of the State to help the investors in getting refund of the deposits stuck in the company. 12. The respondent in response to query numbers 4 and 5 observed that the queries are in the nature of enquiry inquisition and thus cannot be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 13. On consideration I agree with the response provided by the respondent and I also find that the same is that nature of seeking clarification opinion of the respondent. In this context reference is made to the matter of Parvinder Singh vs. Public Information Officer under RTI wherein the Hon’ble CIC held that “12. Nevertheless Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings observes the information sought by the appellant is clarificatory in nature and thus doesn t qualify as information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Further PIO is required to provide information as available with them in form of records documents memos emails opinions advises press releases circulars orders log books contracts reports papers samples models data material held in any form and not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of clarifications hypothetical & futuristic queries.” In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. In view of the above observations I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Place: Mumbai Date: July 27 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 