Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Information Commission

Suman Agarwala Sinhal vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 22 November, 2021

Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta

                              के   ीयसूचनाआयोग
                      Central Information Commission
                          बाबागंगनाथमाग ,मुिनरका
                       Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
                       नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067

ि तीयअपीलसं या/Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/636849

Mrs. Suman Agarwala Singhal                       ... अपीलकता /Appellant
                                   VERSUS
                                    बनाम
CPIO                                                     ... ितवादी/Respondent
Securities and Exchange Board of
India, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4-A
G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:

RTI : 11-09-2018           FA    : 09-10-2018          SA      : 20-03-2020

CPIO : 28-09-2018          FAO : 05-11-2018            Hearing: 17-11-2021

                                  ORDER

1. The appellantfiled an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Ballard (East), Mumbai.The appellantseeking informationis as under:-

Who are the successful sellers of 28th & 29th August 2018 in stock 'Kwality Ltd'

2. At what price they placed order

3. At what time they placed order

4. Why my orders were not matured

5. What was wrong with my orders

6. Who is at fault : ME ? KARVY? NSE? OR SEBI?

2. The CPIO vide letter dated 28-09-2018had denied information as sought by the appellant under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 09-10-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to her. The FAO vide order dated 05-11-2018has given direction to the CPIO to reconsider query nos. 1,2 and 3 and sent appropriate response to the appellant in terms of RTI Act within 15 working days from the date of receipt of their order and disposed the appeal. Shehas filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to her and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

3. Shri Manoj Kumar Agarwal (Representative of Appellant) attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, CPIO/CGM along with Ms. Pramila Sridhar, Dy. GM attended the hearing through audio-call.

4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 08.11.2021 and the same has been taken on record.

5. The representative of appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to the appellant by the respondent on her RTI application dated 11.09.2018.

6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 28.09.2018, they have informed the appellant that the information sought in the instant RTI Application is in the nature of seeking clarifications/ opinion. Accordingly the same cannot be construed as "information", as denied under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005.

Decision:

7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information related to the successful sellers of 28th& 29thAugust 2018 in stock 'Kwality Ltd' and other related queries. The Commission observes that the appellant is seeking clarifications based on records and not seeking any information which exists in Page 2 of 4 material form. The Commission observes that the appellant require CPIO to inspect the records, make an opinion and provide to the appellant. That queries related to clarifications are not maintainable under the RTI Act. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. The CPIO cannot create information in the manner as sought by the appellant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

8. In this regard, the Commission referred to the definition of information u/s Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 which is reproduced below:

"information" means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, report, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."

In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors), wherein it was held as under:

35 "A Public Authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making assumptions. It is also not required to provide 'advice' or 'opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any 'opinion' or 'advice' to an applicant. The reference to 'opinion' or 'advice' in the definition of 'information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."

9. In view of the above ratio, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent vide letter dated 28.09.2019 is satisfactory and hence no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter. Moreover, if the appellant has any grievance, she may file a complaint on an alternate platform for redressal of her grievances.

10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.

11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.

Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगु ा) Information Commissioner (सू सूचनाआयु ) दनांक / Date : 17-11-2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:

1. CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4-A G-Block, Bandra-Kurla Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051

2. Mrs. Suman Agarwala Singhal Page 4 of 4