Central Information Commission
Sumer Chandra Jain vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 30 November, 2018
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द
ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No.:- CIC/SEBIH/A/2017/158256-BJ
Mr. Sumer Chandra Jain
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhawan, Plot no. C4A, "G" Block
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai - 400051
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.11.2018
Date of Decision : 30.11.2018
Date of RTI application 26.05.2017
CPIO's response 12.06.2017
Date of the First Appeal 26.06.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 26.07.2017
Date of diarised receipt of Appeal by the Commission 23.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 11 points regarding the authorization which empowered the SEBI to disrupt the investment of citizens and business of companies and reasons for regulatory change thereof, reasons for no action against Companies and the delay of 5/6 years in filing petitions in courts by SEBI, reasons for not lodging FIR for criminal offences of cheating, fraud, duping and money laundering against Companies and its Directors and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its reply dated 12.06.2017 provided a point-wise response to the Appellant wherein for points 01 to 10, Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005 was referred and for point no. 11, it was stated that the action taken by the SEBI was available on their official website. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated Page 1 of 4 26.07.2017 while relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. (Judgment dated August 09, 2011) and in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI dated January 17, 2013, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Sumer Chandra Jain AC;
Respondent: Mr. G. P. Garg, CPIO and Mr. U. M. Raju, AGM through AC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the information sought by him had not been received. While reiterating the reply of the CPIO / FAA, the Respondent informed the Commission that the status of ten cases mentioned by the Appellant in his RTI application had been furnished to him and through their written submission dated 26.11.2018, the details were provided. The Appellant had not received a copy of the written submission and therefore the Respondent was advised to send an e-mail containing the response.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26.11.2018 wherein while reiterating the reply/order of the CPIO/FAA dated 12.06.2017 and 26.07.2017 respectively, it was submitted that the Applicant vide his earlier RTI application dated 26.03.2016 sought information about 10 Companies wherein information was provided by the CPIO vide letter dated 25.04.2016. It was further submitted that the queries raised by the Appellant in his RTI application was clarificatory in nature regarding various plantation Companies. However, the Applicant had mentioned two names of the Companies viz. Libra Plantations and Maxworth Orchards and sought current status of pending litigation against 10 Companies listed in attachment and plans to expedite payment of dues. It was also submitted that action by SEBI against the Companies was a continuous process. The status is periodically updated and made available on SEBIs website. However, the current status of the 10 cases mentioned in the RTI application dated May 26, 2017 was referred in a tabular format. 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."
Furthermore, a reference can also be made to the relevant extract of Section 2 (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which reads as under:
"(j) right to information" means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority and includes ........"Page 2 of 4
In this context a reference was made to the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in 2011 (8) SCC 497 (CBSE Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay), wherein it was held as under:
35..... "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 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."
DECISION:
Page 3 of 4Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के.एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 30.11.2018
Page 4 of 4