Harbans Singh Sahni vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 27 December, 2021

[Cites 14, Cited by 0]

Central Information Commission

Harbans Singh Sahni vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 27 December, 2021

1. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. The complainant seeking information is as under:-

Kindly Provide the information that shares was not dispatched by the company VR Mathur Mass communication on year 1995 with reference to Page 1 of 10 the folio number Mentioned VMC0000317 under private placement which was kept transparent by sebi.

2. No reply of CPIO is placed on records. Being dissatisfied with the same, the complainant has filed first appeal dated 07-04-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 12-06-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the Complaint. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

CIC/SEBIH/C/2020/800097

3. The complainant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. The complainant seeking information is as under:-

Kindly provide the relevant documents on the basis of RTA has conformed to Sebi that shares was transferred in 2011.

4. The CPIO vide letter dated 28-02-2020 informed that multiple RTI applications in similar matters have been filed, causes wastage of public resources and rejected the RTI Application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the complainant has filed first appeal dated 11-03-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. No FAA order is placed on record. The complainant filed a complaint u/Section 18 of the RTI Act before the Commission requesting to take appropriate legal action against the CPIO u/Section 20 of the RTI Act.

CIC/SEBIH/A/2020/800093

5. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai. The appellant seeking information is as under:-

Page 2 of 10

I have filed the online complaints with SEBI SCORE (Online Grievance Rederessal Portal) as follow:

1. SEBIE/AP18/0000104/1

2. SEBIE/AP18/0000108/1

3. SEBIE/AP18/0000148/1 In all aforesaid complaints, one common Remark by SEBI SCORES has been given that Shares have been transferred in the name of Shri S Harban Singh/ Shares in the name of Shri S Harban Singh have been transferred out from his favor"/ Shares were Alloted to S Harban Singh "What is the source of information on the basis of which the aforesaid remark is given by SEBI SCORES in relation to such online complaints mentioned above " and also provide the relevant documents with reference to mentioned above.

6. The CPIO vide letter dated 28-02-2020 informed that multiple RTI applications in similar matters have been filed, causes wastage of public resources and rejected the RTI Application. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has filed first appeal dated 06-03-2020 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAA vide order dated 18-05-2020 upheld CPIOs reply and disposed the appeal. He has filed a second appeal before the Commission on the ground that information sought has not been provided to him and requested to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.

Hearing:

7. Shri Amandeep Singh Sahni (Representative of the Applicant) attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, CPIO/CGM along with Ms. Pramila Sridhar, DGM attended the hearing through audio-call.

8. Both the parties submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.

Page 3 of 10

9. The representative of the applicant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to the applicant by the respondent on his above RTI applications. He further submitted that the respondent has given false information to the application vide their reply dated 01.06.2020.

10. Ms. Pramila Sridhar reiterated the contents of their reply vide which they have informed the applicant that "he has been seeking information in respect of the same matter through around 84 applications, all of which are on the same issue of his dealings with M/s Gradiente Infotainment Limited. Further, his appeals with First Appeal Authority have also been rejected." She further relied on two judgments of the Commission bearing file no. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064 decided on 04.06.2020 and CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800156 decided on 21.12.2020.

Decision:

11. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the applicant is seeking information regarding VR Mathur Mass Communication and other related queries which are more in the form of clarifications. That in file no. CIC/SEBIH/C/2020/800096, the applicant is seeking confirmation that whether M/s VR Mathur Mass Communication dispatched the shares or not. That the applicant has contended that since the respondent has examined the said matter, therefore they must be having such information. That the applicant expected the CPIO to read and examine his queries based on the documents on record and then provide information to the applicant. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or or to furnish clarification to the applicant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the clarifications/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 applicant. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.

12. 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:

Page 4 of 10

"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."

Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Khanapuram Gandaiah Vs. Administrative Officer and Ors. Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.34868 OF 2009 (Decided on January 4, 2010) had held as under:

6. "....Under the RTI Act "information" is defined under Section 2(f) which provides:

"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."

This definition shows that an applicant under Section 6 of the RTI Act can get any information which is already in existence and accessible to the public authority under law. Of course, under the RTI Act an applicant is entitled to get copy of the opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc., but he Page 5 of 10 cannot ask for any information as to why such opinions, advices, circulars, orders, etc. have been passed."

7. "....the Public Information Officer is not supposed to have any material which is not before him; or any information he could have obtained under law. Under Section 6 of the RTI Act, an applicant is entitled to get only such information which can be accessed by the "public authority" under any other law for the time being in force. The answers sought by the petitioner in the application could not have been with the public authority nor could he have had access to this information and Respondent No. 4 was not obliged to give any reasons as to why he had taken such a decision in the matter which was before him."

Similarly, the High Court of Bombay in Dr. Celsa Pinto, Ex-Officio Joint Secretary (School Education) vs The Goa State Information Commission on 3 April, 2008 (2008 (110) Bom L R 1238) had held as under:

"Section 2(f) -Information means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

The definition cannot include within its fold answers to the question why which would be the same thing as asking the reason for a justification for a particular thing. The Public Information Authorities cannot expect to communicate to the citizen the reason why a certain thing was done or not done in the sense of a justification because the citizen makes a requisition about information. Justifications are matter within the domain of adjudicating authorities and cannot properly be classified as information."

Page 6 of 10

13. Moreover, the applicant is seeking the information pertaining to the third party from the respondent which is held by the public authority in its fiduciary capacity. That such information is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act, 2005. The Commission referred to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in CBSE v. Aditya Bandhopadhyay (2011) 8 SCC 497 wherein it was held as under:

22. ".... But the words 'information available to a person in his fiduciary relationship' are used in section 8(1)(e) of RTI Act in its normal and well recognized sense, that is to refer to persons who act in a fiduciary capacity, with reference to a specific beneficiary or beneficiaries who are to be expected to be protected or benefited by the actions of the fiduciary - a trustee with reference to the beneficiary of the trust, a guardian with reference to a minor/physically/infirm/mentally challenged, a parent with reference to a child, a lawyer or a chartered accountant with reference to a client, a doctor or nurse with reference to a patient, an agent with reference to a principal, a partner with reference to another partner, a director of a company with reference to a share-holder, an executor with reference to a legatee, a receiver with reference to the parties to a lis, an employer with reference to the confidential information relating to the employee, and an employee with reference to business dealings/transaction of the employer."

14. Further, the respondent has informed the Commission that the applicant is in the habit of filing multiple RTI Applications pertains to the similar subject matter. That the answering respondent during the course of the hearing, has also mentioned two judgments of the Commission i.e. CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800064 decided on 04.06.2020 and CIC/SEBIE/A/2020/800156 decided on 21.12.2020 wherein the Commission has already decided the similar issues of the applicant and informed him that these are the grievances of the applicant. That the framework of the RTI Act, 2005 restricts the jurisdiction of the Commission to provide a ruling on the issues pertaining to access/right to information and not to venture into the merits of a case or redressal of grievance. The Commission in a plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated 17.02.2012 Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahugunav. LIC of India, Lucknow CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated 06.09.2012, Mr. H. Page 7 of 10 K.Bansal v. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated29.01.2013 has held that the RTI Act, 2005 is not the proper law for redressal ofgrievances/disputes. Also, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter ofUnion of India v. Namit Sharma in Review Petition [C] No.2309 OF 2012 inWrit Petition [C] No.210 of 2012 with State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. NamitSharma, Review Petition [C] No. 2675 of 2012 in Writ Petition [C] No. 210 of2012 has held as under:-

"While deciding whether a citizen should or should not get a particular information "which is held by or under the control of any public authority", the Information Commission does not decide a dispute between two or more parties concerning their legal rights other than their right to get information in possession of a public authority. This function obviously is not a judicial function, but an administrative function conferred by the Act on the Information Commissions."

Furthermore, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of Hansi Rawat and Anr. v. Punjab National Bank and Ors., LPA No.785/2012 dated 11.01.2013 has held as under:-

"6. The proceedings under the RTI Act do not entail detailedadjudication of the said aspects. The dispute relating to dismissal ofthe appellant No.2 LPA No.785/2012 from the employment of therespondent Bank is admittedly pending consideration before theappropriate forum. The purport of the RTI Act is to enable theappellants to effectively pursue the said dispute. The question, as towhat inference if any is to be drawn from the response of the PIO of the respondent Bank to the RTI application of the appellants, is to bedrawn in the said proceedings and as aforesaid the proceedings underthe RTI Act cannot be converted into proceedings for adjudication ofdisputes as to the correctness of the information furnished."

The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Govt. of NCT v. Rajendra Prasad, WP (C) 10676/2016 dated 30.11.2017 has held as under:-

"6. The CIC has been constituted under Section 12 of the Act andthe W.P.(C) 10676/2016 Page 4 of 5 powers of CIC are delineated under the Act. The CIC being a statutory body has to act strictly within the confines of the Act and is neither required to nor has the jurisdiction to examine any other controversy or disputes.

Page 8 of 10

7. In the present case, it is apparent that CIC had decided issues which were plainly outside the scope of the jurisdiction of CIC under the Act. The limited scope of examination by the CIC was:

(i) whether the information sought for by the respondent was provided to him; (ii) if the same was denied, whether such denial was justified;

(iii) whether any punitive action was required to be taken against the concerned PIO; and

(iv) whether any direction under Section 19(8) were warranted.

In addition, the CIC also exercises powers under Section 18 of the Act and also performs certain other functions as expressly provided under various provisions of the Act including Section 25 of the Act. It is plainly not within the jurisdiction of the CIC to examine the dispute as to whether respondent no.2 was entitled to and was allotted a plot of land under the 20-Point Programme.

15. In the light of the above observations and aforesaid case-laws, the Commission is of the considered view that the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarifications/ confirmations to the applicant w.r.t the redressal of his grievances. That filing multiple RTI Applications pertaining to similar issues will not entitled him to receive the requested information. In this regard, the Commission refers to the decision passed by the Commission in the matter of Jagdish Kumar Koli Vs. Department of School Education & Literacy, MHRD, GOI bearing file no. CIC/SA/A/2015/00184 decided on 25.02.2016 has held as under:-

"5. This finally disposes of all his appeals on this matter, directs the appellant that he shall not repeat such RTI requests, and directs the respondent authority not to cause wastage of public resources in responding to a repeated, frivolous and harassing RTI Application from the appellant."

16. In view of the above, the Commission has suggested the applicant to approach an appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances as the same is beyond the scope of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the applicant is being advised and restrained from filing repeated RTI Applications w.r.t the similar issues in future. Hence, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the above matters.

17. With the above observations, all the above matters are disposed of.

Page 9 of 10

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



                                                                नीरजकु मारगु ा)
                                            Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु       ा
                                                                   सूचनाआयु )
                                         Information Commissioner (सू

                                                           दनांक / Date : 23-12-2021
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, Plto No. C-4A, G-Block,
      Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
      Mumbai-400051

2.    Mr. Harbans Singh Sahni




                                                                         Page 10 of 10

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Central Information Commission