Central Information Commission
Mohit vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 20 October, 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/SEBIH/A/2020/664262
Mr. Mohit ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
The CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Securities and Exchange Board of
India, SEBI Bhavan Plot no. C-4A
G Block Bandra Kurla Complex
Bandra (East)Mumbai - 400051
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 16-12-2019 FA : 16-01-2020 SA : 22-02-2020
CPIO : 15-01-2020 FAO : 14-02-2020 Hearing: 14-10-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO)O/o. TheSEBI, Mumbai.The appellant seeking informationregarding M/s Mahanivesh (India) Ltd, M/s Geefcee Finance Ltd, M/s Karan Finance Ltd, M/s Kalyani Finance Ltd, M/s ZED Investment Ltd and M/s Padmini Technologies Ltd including inter alia:-
1) "Inspection of all information furnished to NRO of SEBI in respect of public issues of the six gems.
2) The quantum of losses suffered by investors as recorded by SEBI in respect of public issues of the six gems.
3) Inspection of all information called for by SEBI in respect of public issues of the six gems prior to permitting these issues.Page 1 of 4
4) Observations recorded by SEBI in respect of public issues of the six gems.
5) Publication (on the website of SEBI for perusal of general public) of offer documents of the six gems."
2. The CPIO vide their letter dated 15.01.2020, informed the appellant that the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application is vague and not specific and cannot be construed as "information" as defined u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005 and the information sought at point nos. 2, 4 & 5 is not available with SEBI. The CPIO further provided relevant reply w.r.t the information sought at point no. 3 of the RTI Application. Dissatisfied with the reply received from the CPIO, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 16-01-2020 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The FAA upheld CPIO's reply vide order dated 14.02.2020. Thereafter the appellant filed a second appeal u/Section 19(3) of the RTI Act before the Commission on the ground that information has not been provided to him and requested the Commission to direct the respondent to provide complete and correct information.
Hearing:
3. The appellant remained absent during the hearing. The mobile number of the appellant also remained switched off despite the several attempts made by the Commission. The respondent, Smt Pramila Sridhar, DGM/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 11.10.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 15.01.2020, they have informed the appellant that the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application is vague and not specific, therefore the same cannot be construed as "information", as defined u/s 2 (f) of the RTI Act, 2005. She further submitted that the information sought t point nos. 2, 4 & 5 of the RTI Application is not available with the respondent. She submitted that in reply to the information sought at point no. 3 of the RTI Application, it has been informed to the appellant that the respondent does not permit any issues, but issues observations on the draft offer documents. Therefore the query of the appellant was adequately addressed by the respondent.
Page 2 of 4Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought inspection of all information furnished to NRO of SEBI in respect of public issues of the six gems and other related queries. That the information sought at point no. 1 of the RTI Application is general, wide and non-specific as the appellant has sought inspection of all information furnished to NRO of SEBI which requires CPIO to interpret the information sought in the said point and do research, accordingly providehim the relevant information. It has been observed that the CPIO is not supposed to interprete and make an opinion under the ambit of the RTI Act. 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 expect to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him.
7. 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."
8. Moreover, the information sought at point nos. 2, 4 & 5 of the RTI Application were also not provided by the respondent due to non-availability of the relevant information with their office. Further at point no. 3 of the RTI Page 3 of 4 Application, the appellant has sought inspection of all information called for by the respondent in respect of public issues of the six gems prior to permitting these issues for which the respondent has already informed the appellant that their office does not permit any issues. Therefore, all the queries of the appellant has adequately been dealt with by the respondent and a point-wise reply to the instant application has also been provided by the respondent vide their letter dated 15.01.2020 i.e. well within stipulated time-period and the same is in order. Therefore the reply of the respondent is being upheld by the Commission.
9. No further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.
10. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
11. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
नीरजकु मारगु ा)
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु ा
सूचनाआयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक / Date : 14-10-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित)
S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ),
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक),
(011-26105682)
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Securities and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhawan, Plot no. C-4A, G Block
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai - 400051
2. Mohit
Page 4 of 4