Central Information Commission
Manish Mansukhbhai Nandasana vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 28 May, 2025
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गं गनाथ माग,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं ा / Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2024/607299
Manish Mansukhbhai ... अपीलकता/Appellant
Nandasana
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: Securities and
Exchange Board of India
(SEBI), Head Office, Mumbai ... ितवादीगण/Respondent
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 04.01.2024 FA : 10.01.2024 SA : 21.02.2024
CPIO : 08.01.2024 FAO : 30.01.2024 Hearing : 08.05.2025
Date of Decision: 27.05.2025
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 04.01.2024 seeking information on the following points:
1. "How much compensation has been paid to the chairman of the R M Lodha committee (in the matter of PACL) since the date of appointment till now?
2. Where does the money to pay them come from? From the Government of India or from the sale of PACL properties?"
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 08.01.2024 and the same is reproduced as under:-
Page 1 of 3"The information sought is not available with SEBI.
Further the Justice Lodha Committee having been constituted by an order dated 02/02/2016 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India is not a Public Authority within the meaning under Section 2 (h) of the RTI Act, 2005 and hence would not fall within the purview of the said Act.
However, contact details of the committee is available on SEBI website at the below given link:
https://www.sebi.gov.in/documents/Justice(Retd.) R.M.Lodha Committee in the matter of PACL Limited nov2023.pdf Further, the details of PACL Matters - Public Notices, Press Releases, Status Report, and FAQs etc. are available on SEBI website at www.sebi.gov.in/PACL.html."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 10.01.2024. The FAA vide order dated 30.01.2024 upheld the reply given by the CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 21.02.2024.
5. The Appellant remained absent during the hearing and on behalf of the Respondent, B J Dilip, CGM & CPIO along with Mohd. Atif Alvi, GM attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The Respondent reiterated the reply provided to the Appellant.
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, and perusal of records, observes that the RTI Application seeks answers to interrogative and conjecture-based queries, which cannot be deemed as "information" in a strict sense as envisaged under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The CPIO's reply nonetheless should have been restricted to stating the unavailability of the information with SEBI and not digress Page 2 of 3 into the aspect of Section 2(h) of the RTI Act as it was unwarranted and inconsequential when the instant RTI Application was filed with a public authority i.e. SEBI and not with the averred committee.
8. Having observed as above, the CPIO is advised to exercise due diligence while replying to RTI Applications in the future. However, there is no scope of relief to be ordered in the matter.
9. The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनंदी रामिलंगम) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) िदनांक/Date: 27.05.2025 Authenticated true copy O. P. Pokhriyal (ओ. पी. पोख रयाल) Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक) 011-26180514 Addresses of the parties:
1 The CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai - 400051 2 Manish Mansukhbhai Nandasana Page 3 of 3 Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)