Central Information Commission
Mr.Shantaram Walavalkar vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 17 January, 2013
Central Information Commission, New Delhi
File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/901093 & 901297
Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19)
Date of hearing : 17 January 2013
Date of decision : 17 January 2013
Name of the Appellant : Shri Shantaram Walavalkar,
503, Saurabh, Swastik Park,
Chembur, Mumbai - 400 071.
Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of
India, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C4A,
G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (E), Mumbai - 400 051.
The Appellant was present.
On behalf of the Respondent, Shri Aman Jain, AGM was present.
Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra
2. The Appellant was present in the Mumbai studio of the NIC. The Respondent was present in our chamber. We heard their submissions.
3. In two almost identical RTI applications, the Appellant had raised a number of queries regarding the rule position in respect of the unit statements issued by asset management companies like the UTI and the unilateral changes made in those by such companies. The CPIO had provided part information while also observing that many of the queries were in the nature of CIC/SM/A/2012/901093 & 901297 seeking opinion which could not be given under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The Appellate Authority had, in a speaking order, upheld the response of the CPIO.
4. After carefully considering the contents of the RTI applications and the response of the CPIO, we are of the view that there is a need to carefully go through the queries and find out if there is any rule or guidelines or instructions, ever issued by the SEBI on the subjects contained in those queries and to provide copies of those to the Appellant. If, however, there is no such rule or guidelines or instructions, the Appellant can be informed suitably. We, therefore, direct the CPIO to write to the Appellant within 15 working days of receiving this order and provide him the copies of the relevant rules on his queries, if available, and, if not, to intimate him suitably.
5. While on the subject, 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 by posing somewhat hypothetical queries. We hope the Appellant would keep this in mind.
6. Both the appeals are disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties.
(Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner CIC/SM/A/2012/901093 & 901297 Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission.
(Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2012/901093 & 901297