“details of PACL – Status Report, FAQs, Press Releases and Public Notices etc. are available on SEBI website.”: Appellate Authority.
The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of Bharat Dhanji Pindoria v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4324 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Bharat Dhanji Pindoria had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 18th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 7th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 7th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 7th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellant, dated May 18, 2021, inter alia, sought information as to why SEBI constituted committee under the Supreme Court for PACL. The appellant referred to his refund application and sought further information as to why the committee, in its mail dated February 26, 2021, did not specify the duration of months for refund and the name of the scrutinizing officer who had verified the policy. The appellant also queried why Retired Justice R M Lodha is not replying to the mails. In addition to the same, the appellant sought the reason for not releasing Rs. 6250. The respondent, in response to the queries, observed that the information sought by the appellant, is not available with SEBI. However, the appellant was advised to contact the Justice (Retd.) R.M. Lodha Committee. The respondent had provided the link for accessing the details of the Committee, for further communication. The appellant was also advised to refer the public notice dated July 31, 2020 for status of refund. It was also informed that vide public notice dated October 15, 2020, the Committee had provided the investors a facility to view the status of/ deficiency in their claim applications and make good those deficiencies for investors/applicants with claims upto Rs. 7,000/-. Further, the respondent had provided links for accessing the said public notices. Further, it is understood that the details of PACL – Status Report, FAQs, Press Releases and Public Notices etc. are available on SEBI website (www.sebi.gov.in) at : https://www.sebi.gov.in/PACL.html and details of property of PACL Ltd. are available at https://www.auctionpacl.com and www.sebipaclproperties.com. Further, there is a dedicated website with regard to PACL refund – https://sebicommitteepaclrefund.com. For the query, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. 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…”. In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.
Appeal No. 43221 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43221 Bharat Dhanji Pindoria CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 18 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 R.M. Lodha Committee. The respondent had provided the link for accessing the details of the Committee for further communication. The appellant was also advised to refer the public notice dated July 31 2020 for status of refund. It was also informed that vide public notice dated October 15 2020 the Committee had provided the investors a facility to view the status of deficiency in their claim applications and make good those deficiencies for investors applicants with claims upto Rs. 7 000 . Further the respondent had provided links for accessing the said public notices. Appeal No. 43221 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has submitted the appeal on the ground that he is not satisfied with the response provided by the respondent. I have perused the application and I find no reason to disbelieve the said observation of the respondent that the information sought is not available with SEBI. It is understood that the responsibility of disposal of the properties and repayment to investors is entrusted with the PACL Committee which has been constituted pursuant to the order dated February 2 2016 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. I also note that the refund process is being handled by the said Committee. Upon a consideration of the aforesaid I find no deficiency in the respondent’s response to the instant query of the appellant’s Further with respect to the appellant’s application seeking reason for constitution of the PACL Committee reason for not specifying the duration of months for refund and the name of the scrutinizing officer who had verified the policy and reason for not replying to mails I am of the opinion that the same is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion from 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 2of 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 SEBI I note that the Hon’ble CIC 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...”. Further it is understood that the details of PACL Status Report FAQs Press Releases and Public Notices etc. are available on SEBI website at : https: www.sebi.gov.in PACL.html and details of property of PACL Ltd. are available at https: www.auctionpacl.com and www.sebipaclproperties.com. Further there is a dedicated website with regard to PACL refund https: sebicommitteepaclrefund.com. Appeal No. 43221 I find that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to access the contact details of the Committee. In addition to the same the email address of the Committee is mentioned below E mail address: nodalofficerpacl@sebi.gov.in. 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 15 2021 AMARJEET SINGH APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 