“Appellate Authority remits the matter to the respondent for de novo consideration of the queries of the appellant’s application.”: SEBI, Part 2.
V. Still better, in continuation of (III) &amp; (IV) above, pl. give/ cite number, date etc. etc. of Hon’ble Court (Hon’ble SC of India or any other Judicial authority) directive (if any) over the issue of sealing the bank accounts of all Sahara group companies and in particular coop society as at Annexure No. 1. VI. If names (companies/ coop societies) were identified by SEBI and its competent authority then pl. furnish details such as designation of officer of SEBI, his Dept/ Sectors &amp; complete postal address. This information (sought) is in continuation of (III) and (IV) above. VII. In respect to process/ procedure to be followed for sealing bank accounts (Sahara group companies coop societies) whether SEBI had done so (a) directly by contacting such companies/ coop societies (b) banks (its nodal authority) &amp; branches directly. (c) through c/o Hon’ble Central Registrar of Coop societies New Delhi or Hon’ble Joint Secretary (credit and cooperative), concerned GOI Ministry new Delhi. VIII. Please quote or cite number, dates of SEBI directive/ letter to VII (a), (b) (c) above. The respondent, vide response dated June 07, 2021, informed that the request for providing the reply within 48 hours cannot be accepted, as the request has not been corroborated with substantive evidence warranting the invocation of proviso to section 7(1) of the RTI Act. For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of the Office Memorandum dated November 28, 2013 issued by Ministry of personnel, Public grievances &amp; Pensions, Department of Personnel &amp; Training, stated that “If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim as belonging to the below poverty line category. The application not accompanied by the prescribed application fee or proof of the applicant’s belonging to below poverty line category, as the case may be, shall not be a valid application under the Act.” It is understood that soon after receiving the application, the CPIO should check whether the applicant has made the payment of application fee or whether the applicant is a person belonging to a BPL category. If application is not accompanied by the prescribed fee or the BPL Certificate, it cannot be treated as an application under the RTI Act. In the extant matter, it was noted that the appellant has already submitted the requisite fees prescribed under the RTI Act. Further, the appellant has not provided any document along with her application to show as to why she should be considered as a person below poverty line. In view of this, it cannot be said that the respondent has erred in not considering the appellant as a person below the poverty line. Mr Baiwar found that the request of the appellant for returning the IPO of Rs. 10, does not warrant consideration at this stage. In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response. 
Appeal No. 43421 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43421 Devkaben N. Kumbhare CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 27 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005against the respondent’s response dated June 07 2021. On perusal of the said appeal it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided by the respondent. In view of the submissions made in the said appeal the queries and the response provided thereto are discussed in the following paragraphs. 3. Query of the application On perusal of the application dated May 27 2021 it appears that the appellant has filed the same under “life and liberty” provision of the RTI Act. Further the appellant has requested that the IPO of Rs. 10 may be returned back since she has no source of income. Further the appellant vide her application sought the following information I. Kindly let us know whether the cooperative societyas at annexure No 1A enclosed herewith is one of the companiesand or Cooperative society of which bank accounts are sealed or seizedby SEBI as per directions of Hon’ble Judiciary. II. Kindly quote cite the relevant excerpt of reason for doingwhat is mentioned at 1 above. III. Kindly let us knowwhether directive if any of Hon’ble Judiciary clearly categorically mentions the name above cooperative societyin its order directiveas mentioned in Court order or as compiled by SEBI or competent authority or which bank accounts are to be sealed seized or freezed V. Still better in continuation of&above pl. give cite number date etc. etc. of Hon’ble Courtdirectiveover the issue of sealing the bank accounts of all Sahara group companies and in particular coop society as at Annexure No. 1. VI. If nameswere identified by SEBI and its competent authority then pl. furnish details such as designation of officer of SEBI his Dept Sectors & complete postal address. This informationis in continuation ofandabove. VII. In respect to process procedure to be followed for sealing bank accountswhether SEBI had done sodirectly by contacting such companies coop societiesbanks& branches directly.through c o Hon’ble Central Registrar of Coop societies New Delhi or Hon’ble Joint Secretaryconcerned GOI Ministry new VIII. Please quote or cite number dates of SEBI directive letter to VII(b)above. The respondent vide response dated June 07 2021 informed that the request for providing the reply within 48 hours cannot be accepted as the request has not been corroborated with substantive evidence warranting the invocation of proviso to section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Further with respect to query numbers I II III IV V VI VII and VIII the respondent informed that the entity Stars Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited is registered under the Multi State Cooperative Societies Act 2002 as a Multi Purpose Cooperative Society. Fund raising by cooperative societies does not fall under SEBI’s purview and the complaints received by SEBI in this regard are being forwarded to Central Registrar Department of Agriculture Cooperation & Farmers Welfare Ministry of Agriculture farmers Welfare Krishi Bhavan New Delhi 110001. Further the respondent informed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated August 31 2012 inter alia directed SEBI to refund to the subscribers the moneys invested by them in the Optionally Fully Convertible Debenturesissued by two companies namely Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Appeal No. 43421 Ltd. and or Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd. after verifying their genuineness. It was also informed that SEBI vide last round of advertisements published in newspapers on March 26 2018 and addendum published on June 19 2018 had given the last and final opportunity to the above stated OFCD holders of SIRECL and or SHICL to apply to SEBI for claiming refund by July 02 2018. It was also clarified that no application would be accepted entertained after the cut off date i.e. July 02 2018. Further the respondent mentioned that the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court were available on the SEBI Website and guided the appellant for accessing the same. 9. Grounds of Appeal On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appeal was filed on the ground that the reply provided by the respondent was devoid of information sought by the appellant. Further the appellant inter alia submitted that the respondent has not provided point wise information to her application. 10. Firstly I note that the appellant has filed the same under “life and liberty” provision i.e. proviso to section 7(1) of the RTI Act. I have perused the application. On consideration I am inclined to agree with the observation of the respondent that the request has not been corroborated with substantive evidence warranting the invocation of proviso to section 7(1) of the RTI Act. Accordingly no interference of this forum is warranted. 11. Further the appellant has requested that the IPO of Rs. 10 may be returned back since she has no source of income. In this context I note that the Office Memorandum dated November 28 2013 issued by Ministry of personnel Public grievances & Pensions Department of Personnel & Training stated that “If the applicant belongs to below poverty linecategory he is not required to pay any fee. However he should submit a proof in support of his claim as belonging to the below poverty line category. The application not accompanied by the prescribed application fee or proof of the applicant’s belonging to below poverty line category as the case may be shall not be a valid application under the Act.” It is understood that soon after receiving the application the CPIO should check whether the applicant has made the payment of application fee or whether the applicant is a person belonging to a BPL category. If application is not accompanied by the prescribed fee or the BPL Certificate it cannot be treated as an application under the RTI Act. In the extant matter I note that the appellant has already submitted the requisite fees prescribed under the RTI Act. Further the appellant has not provided any document along with her application to show as to why she should be considered as a person below poverty line. In view of this it cannot be said that the respondent has erred in not Appeal No. 43421 considering the appellant as a person below the poverty line. I find that the request of the appellant for returning the IPO of Rs. 10 does not warrant consideration at this stage. 12. On perusal of the queries raised in the application the reply given by the respondent and the submissions made in the appeal I note that the queries pertain to various issues related to the status of Stars Multipurpose Cooperative Society Limited orders mentioning name of the said Co operative Society among other co op Societies and group companies) and process procedure to be followed for sealing bank accounts. I find that the queries have not been examined point wise in the response. Without going into the merits of the matter I find it appropriate for the respondent to reconsider the request and provide a response thereon. 13. Considering the above observations I remit the matter to the respondent for de novo consideration of the queriesof the appellant’s application dated May 27 2021 and to send appropriate response to the appellant in terms of RTI Act within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. 14. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Place: Mumbai Date: July 16 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 