Central Information Commission
T. V. Sundaresan vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 2 December, 2021
Author: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
Bench: Neeraj Kumar Gupta
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/2020/667461
Mr. T.V. Sundaresan ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
... ितवादी/Respondent
CPIO
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 : 10-06-2019 FA : 24-07-2019 SA : 31-03-2020
CPIO : 08-07-2019 FAO : 13-02-2020 Hearing : 24-11-2021
ORDER
1. 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 enclosed various documents and sought the following information:
"G 27 Was the attention of SEBI drawn in course of vetting by SEBI to the following and were the following analysed in respect of the above and those mentioned below :
i. misstatements in the Board Report under Directors responsibility statement.
ii. changes in accounting policies etc on the threshold of a forthcoming IPO and not being so reported under Directors responsibility statement that too.
iii. impact and incidence of the above on the net worth and " price discovery " of the issue and the amount of premium Page 1 of 5 iv. has there been fair play --- let me reformulate the question - misstatement and resultant fraud ?
N49. para wise / sub para wise / point wise / sub pointwise etc ATR pls on above"
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 08-07-2019 informed the appellant that the queries are vague and not specific, accordingly, the same cannot be construed as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. Being dissatisfied with the same, the appellant has file first appeal dated 24-07-2019 and requested that the information should be provided to him. The FAO vide letter dated 13-02-2020 Upheld CPIO's reply and the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Thereafter the appellant 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:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Santosh Sharma, CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted that the desired information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 10.06.2019.
6. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 08.07.2019, they have informed the appellant that he has not sought any specific information and the same cannot be construed as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. He further submitted that as per section 7 (9) of RTI Act, 2005, an information shall ordinarily be provided in the form in which it is sought unless it would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority.
Decision:
7. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that very vague and non-specific information has been sought by the Appellant in his RTI application. From the bare reading of the RTI application itself it is clear that the appellant is raising situational queries including misstatement in Board report, change in accounting policies, impact and incidence of the above on the net worth, etc. The Commission finds that the information sought by the appellant is non- specific and does not relate to any identifiable document held by the respondent in material form. Rather these are in the nature of situational queries. The appellant is expecting the Page 2 of 5 respondent to collect and compile the information in the manner as sought by him. But the CPIO is not supposed to make interpretation of general queries, to make opinion and identify specific information or to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification; or to compile or collate information in a specific manner under the ambit of the RTI Act. The CPIO is only a communicator of information based on the records held in the office and hence, he cannot expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
8. The framework of the RTI Act, 2005 expects that the information sought is specific and believed to be existing with the public authority in documented or material form as such; which can be shared with the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Answering to broad, multiple and general queries and presumptive documents that should have been generated as per the expectation of the appellant cannot be furnished under the provisions of the Act.
9. 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."
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:
Page 3 of 56. "....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." 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."Page 4 of 5
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."
10. In view of the above ratios, the Commission is of the opinion that the reply provided by the respondent is satisfactory and same is being upheld by the Commission.
11. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
12. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
13. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरज कु मार गु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरज ा
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 24-11-2021
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. Mr. T. V. Sundaresan
Page 5 of 5