Central Information Commission
Mr.Ss Vohra vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 27 September, 2010
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
Appeal No. CIC/AT/A/2009/000633 dated 11.08.2009
Complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000561 dated 11.08.2009
Right to Information Act 2005 - Sections 18 & 19
PARTIES TO THE CASE:
Appellant : Shri S.S. Vohra
Public Authority : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
Date of Decision : 27.09.2010
FACTS OF THE CASE:
These two petitions (secondappeal No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000633 and complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000561) filed by Shri S.S. Vohra are against the order of the Appellate Authority, Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), dated 11.06.2009.
2. Earlier, these petitions came up for hearing before the Single Bench of the Central Information Commissioner, Shri A.N. Tiwari on 15.09.2009. After hearing the initial submissions of the parties, the Single Bench referred the case to be decided by a larger bench with the following observation: "During the hearing of this appeal, certain important points regarding interpretation of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act came up. CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 1 of 30 Some of these points have been made in certain earlier proceedings as well. These include the following: (A) What is the import of the words "information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force"?
(i) Does it mean that only an information relating to a private body as held by a given public authority is disclosable?
Or,
(ii) The public authority is obliged to exercise its powers under "any other law" to gain access to the information in the hands of the private body and transmit the same to the petitioner.
(B) In case of both A(i) and A(ii) above, how to ensure and, who ensures the authenticity and the accuracy of the transmitted information?
(C) In case of A(ii), who becomes responsible for timely disclosure of the information under Section 6(1)? In other words, in case of 'no action' or 'delayed action' by the private entity in transmitting the information to the public authority/CPIO, or in case where the private entity is providing false and misleading information, can there be a Section 18 or Section 20 proceeding against the employee of such a private entity?
(D) On whom will be Section 19(8)(b) liability for compensation payment, if awarded.
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 2 of 30
2. These are important questions which will determine the scope of Section 2(f) and define its relationship with Sections 2(j), 7(1), 18 and 20 of the RTI Act."
3. Accordingly, the Chief Information Commissioner constituted a Division Bench comprising the following members:
(i) Shri Wajahat Habibullah, Chief Central Information Commissioner and
(ii) Shri A.N. Tiwari, Central Information Commissioner
4. The Division Bench of the Commission so constituted conducted a hearing in the matter on 22.09.2010.
5. The RTIapplication in which the secondappeal and the complaint originated was filed by appellant on 25.02.2009 before the CPIO, SEBI. The queries read as follows: "1. I shall like to have a hard copy of the Mirror file (term as used by financial companies that is with the details of the identification of authorized Officer on the 3rd party who uploaded my person information on to the web pages) of my personal records on the web pages of the 3rd party, updated initially that is on or before 3rd June, 2003, by the 3rd party when my three in one account was activated by the 3rd party. CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 3 of 30
2. I shall like to have a hard copy of the Mirror file (term as used by financial companies that is with the details of the identification of authorized Officer of the 3rd party who uploaded my personal information on to the web pages) of my personal records on the web pages of the 3rd party, when it was tampered with by the 3rd party's Officer or by some body else (an unauthorized Officer of a sister concern of the 3rd party) on Sep 8, 2006.
3. Whether it was tampered with by the concerned Officer on his / her own or as per the directive of his seniors of the 3rd party and the identity of the Officer who directed him / her to tamper with my records. All correspondence and file noting along with the instructions of the senior should be supplied to me including decision of the Board of Directors if that may be case.
4. The name of unauthorized official who was issued a valid login id, password, and personal key that has tampered with my records. The present address, contact number, local and permanent address should also to be given to me.
5. Name of the insurance company with whom the 3rd party has insured the safety of my personal records and insurance premium paid year wise and the compensation it claimed and received from him.
6. Whether my records were tampered with by the authorized Officer of the 3rd party or by somebody else that is by an unauthorized person of the sister concern of 3rd party and if so how and what punishment could have been awarded to him and not given?
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 4 of 30
7. Whether IBL as DP and ICICI Web trade has informed you about loss o f documents u/r 20 A (14) of the DP's Act1996, and if not why? Action taken by SEBI and if not taken why and under what rules. What action could have been taken against them for conducting their business without complying with the Rules and regulations of the Law of the Land and DP's Act1996?
8. Whether a copy of records were maintained by IBL and I securities at another place as per the provisions of Rule 50 of the DP Act1996. If not then what action SEBI has taken against them and if not why and under what rules and whether they could have been allowed to continue their business, if so under what rules?
9. As per your letter No.CPIO/RKN/JJ/4382007/108098 dated Nov; 7, 2007, you have informed me that NSDL is the first level Regulator under DP's Act1996, therefore the records of NSDL can be called for, by SEBI as a Regulator of Financial Markets also and can call for the information available with it and 3rd party and SEBI is duty bound to provide me the same under section 11(1) of the Act Under the above provisions the following information is required from CPIO, SEBI.
10. As per information provided by you, NSDL vide its letter no.PID/2007/PS/0959 dated Sep; 13, 2007, he has advised the 3rd party to suspend the active accounts of its customers since 3rd party lost the A.O.Fs. Sections of DP Act1996 and other provisions of the Law of the Land under which it advised 3rd party to suspend the active accounts of its customers. I may be allowed to go through the relevant files CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 5 of 30 of NSDL & 3rd party also and allowed to take a copy of the file noting also if required.
11. Whether NSDL can legislate Law for the Citizen of the country and direct the 3rd parties to implement the same without any legal Authority and if so under what authority and law?
12. I have sent a personal letter to Hon'ble Chairman, SEBI, about the illegal working of 3rd parties dated June 10, 2007. Though CPIO never informed me about the action taken by SEBI in this regard, but as per the directions of Hon'ble CIC in Mr.S.S. Vohra Vs. SEBI, Appeal No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00088, 89 & 90 dated July 10, 2008, while going through the file noting, I could find NSDL's reply "That the complaint has been closed" (indicating the status as on 04.07.07 by merely sending a letter to DP) but it did not have any further information of how and when it was resolved by NSDL ? You may give me the complete information on this and how SEBI accepted the rationale of resolution by NSDL without asking for further comments of NSDL and that of the 3rd parties of the action taken by them to resolve the complaint?"
6. CPIO, in his reply dated 25.03.2009, informed appellant that information in regard to queries at Sl.Nos.1, 2 and 5 were in the control of the private thirdparty, viz. ICICI Bank Ltd, from whom replies have been sought. As regards queries at Sl.Nos.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12 appellant was informed to refer to earlier replies furnished to him by the CPIO in the matter ostensibly brought up with the SEBI by the appellant separately. Information for queries at Sl.Nos.6 and 11 was declined on the ground CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 6 of 30 that this was in the nature of seeking explanation and hence beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
7. Appellant carried this matter in firstappeal dated 11.05.2009 to the Appellate Authority, Shri M.S. Sahoo, who passed a detailed order on 11.06.2009. Some of the points made in the Appellate Authority's order are worth reproducing.
8. Appellate Authority (AA) noted that appellant had alleged that CPIO had passed on to him unverified, information as supplied by the third party, viz. ICICI Bank Ltd. The thirdparty, through its communication dated 25.03.2009, objected to disclosure of parts of the information, but agreed to the CPIO divulging it in his discretion.
9. As regards points at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 in appellant's RTIapplication, AA noted that request in these queries were for mirror files of appellant's personal records on the webpages held by the thirdparty, ICICI Bank Ltd. It was the Appellate Authority's judgement that CPIO was entirely within his right to transfer this information to the appellant as it was received by him from the thirdparty ICICI Bank. CPIO was not required to validate this information because as reasoned by the Appellate Authority "the information/document in question is not in the custody of CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 7 of 30 SEBI." If the appellant found the disclosed information incorrect or false or misleading, his "remedy lies elsewhere".
10. In regard to item no.5, Appellate Authority concluded that it was the duty of SEBI to provide this class of information to any applicant not just under the RTI Act, but in its function as the market regulator. He held that not disclosing this information because it was held by an outsourced agency could be "extremely dangerous to the working of the market and against the interest of investors".
11. Appellate Authority, therefore, directed CPIO to disclose this information to the appellant.
12. Regarding query of the appellant at Sl.No.6, Appellate Authority held that CPIO must obtain the requisite information from the thirdparty and provide it to the appellant.
13. In respect of item no.8, noting that reference by CPIO to earlier correspondence was "clumsy", AA directed the CPIO to provide complete information to the appellant.
14. AA declined disclosure of any information relating to item no.10 in appellant's RTIapplication on the ground that the request was unclear CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 8 of 30 and that SEBI could not be expected to render professional advice to the appellant.
15. In regard to item no.11, while noting that CPIO was right in claiming that this information was in the nature of seeking an opinion, Appellate Authority ― as a senior officer of SEBI himself ― noted that a depository have had powers under Section 26 of the Depositories Act to make bye laws consistent with the provisions of the Depositories Act and the Regulations.
16. Summing up his decision, Appellate Authority directed CPIO to provide information relating to items 5, 6 and 7 to the appellant within 15 days.
17. Pursuant to the Appellate Authority's order, CPIO sent another communication dated 26.06.2009 to the appellant providing him information relating to the three queries mentioned in the preceding paragraph.
Grounds of secondappeal: CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 9 of 30
18. Appellant, through secondappeal petition dated 25.07.2009, has challenged the Appellate Authority's order in respect of items at Sl.Nos.1, 2, 6, 7, 10, 11 and 12 of his RTIapplication on multiple grounds.
19. As regards items at Sl.Nos. 1 and 2, appellant claims that the mirror files supplied by the thirdparty, ICICI Bank Limited contained "wrong information" which was routinely forwarded to him by CPIO "without verifying it". Appellate Authority avoided making a direct comment on the validity of the information supplied to him and sidetracked the issue by stating that he had had no reason to believe or disbelieve the information transmitted. Appellant has argued that SEBI ― as market regulator ― was obliged to ensure that appellant received accurate information from any entity operating in the capital market. This, according to the appellant, was SEBI's obligation under SEBI's own laws, which he had a right to activate through recourse to the RTI Act.
20. As regards item at Sl.Nos.6 and 7, it is appellant's claim that CPIO, following the Appellate Authority's order, has routinely collected and transmitted information received from the thirdparty without verifying whether the information was accurate. Appellant claims that the statement given by IBL was false, which went unverified by the CPIO. CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 10 of 30
21. It is the appellant's contention, as regards item at Sl.No.10, that it was common knowledge that no entity could make laws contrary to the laws enacted by the Parliament and, yet this query of his had gone unanswered by the CPIO. He believes that it was the SEBI's duty to ensure that byelaws of entities such as the thirdparty ― NSDL ― are not violative of the legislative enactments.
22. For item at Sl.No.11, according to the appellant, although the Appellate Authority held that NSDL have had powers to make byelaws consistent with the provisions of the Depositories Act, 1996, yet he failed to provide him the information as to under which rules, he could advise his participants to suspend an active account of its customer for non resubmission of AOH. Appellant believes that this was a valid information which has been declined to him.
23. In sum, appellant's plea is that the private entities such as the NSDL operating in the capital market had to act consistently with the guidelines laiddown by SEBI and given their obligation to do so, they were also obliged, by inference, to provide correct and accurate information to anyone who seeks it not just under the RTI Act but also within the SEBI laws themselves.
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 11 of 30
24. Appellant demanded that costs should be levied on the respondent SEBI for obstructing disclosure of his information. Respondents' Counter:
25. Countering the arguments of the appellant contained in his second appeal petition, SEBI raised several points regarding the RTI Act and its relationship with the SEBI's own laws. Their comments are summarized below:
26. It was pointed out that appellant's first appeal was limited only to items at Sl.Nos.17 and 1011, whereas in the secondappeal he has also included an additional item, i.e. at Sl.No.12, which was never mentioned in the firstappeal. Respondents objected to inclusion of item 12 in the secondappeal. They, however, pointed out that information relating to this additional item 12 was furnished to the appellant by CPIO, through his letter dated 25.03.2009.
27. Regarding items 1, 2 and 5 in appellant's RTIapplication, SEBI counter claimed that these items of information were not held by SEBI itself, but were under the control of the thirdparty, viz. the ICICI Bank Ltd, from which it was collected and transmitted to the appellant. It was pointed out by the respondents that no obligation to validate the CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 12 of 30 information transmitted to the appellant could be cast on SEBI when the information was never held in their control and was obtained from an outside thirdparty. They have further pointed out that the allegation of the appellant that information furnished was false itself was nothing more than his assumption. By alleging that NSDL was providing him false and incorrect information, appellant was turning RTI into an inquisition against the thirdparties.
28. They have also objected to the attempt by the appellant to be allowed to inspect the files held by NSDL and ICICI Bank Ltd and to take copies from there on the ground that this was not an information held by SEBI, but by the thirdparties and the right to inspect those documents could not be exercised when the information is in private hands.
29. They have repeated their point that, in the guise of seeking information, appellant was seeking relief and professional advice from SEBI, which it was not obliged to give to him.
30. On the question of a public authority ― in this case SEBI ― accessing information under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act when the information is held by a private entity which comes under the regulatory control of the public authority, i.e. SEBI, the respondents had this to say: CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 13 of 30 "i) ..........The Appellant in his application had sought hard copies of mirror files of his personal records maintained with NSDL, ICICI Bank (as Depository participants and stock broker), name of the insurance company with whom ICICI Bank (as Depository Participant) has insured the safety of applicants personal records, insurance premium paid year wise, the compensation it claimed and received, inspection of files of NSDL, etc.
ii) It is submitted that most of the information sought by the applicant, in application under reference was from NSDL, ICICI Bank (as Depository Participant). The information sought was not available or maintained with SEBI. The applicant itself has submitted that, in the very 1st para of his aforesaid application, since NSDL, ICICI Bank (as Depository Participants and stock broker) are not covered under RTI Act, 2005 but his (applicant's) personal records maintained by them can be called for by SEBI in the capacity of Regulator of the capital market u/s 11(1) of the Act and a copy of his personal information can be given to him. CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 14 of 30
iii) In this regard, it is most humbly submitted that, as per definition of term 'right to information' given under section 2(j) of the RTI Act it means the right to information accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority. Therefore the right to information pertains only to information which is in the custody of the public authority. This being so, the information asked for by the applicant was not covered under the purview of RTI Act.
iv) It is further submitted that, with regard to information of third party, section 11(1) of the RTI Act provides that when a CPIO intends to disclose any information or record which relates to or has been supplied by a third party the CPIO is required to give a written notice to that third party inviting his submission in writing regarding whether the information should be disclosed and the same shall be kept in view while taking a decisions of disclosure of information. This provision is not applicable as such information was not available or maintained with SEBI. The provision relating to thirdparty information presupposes the information is CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 15 of 30 available with CPIO and it does not say that the CPIO shall ask the information sought for by the appellant.
v) It is submitted that if applicant is allowed to approach a regulator and ask for information about any private body or registered entity and expect it to collect the information and supply it to him, this will make a travesty of the right to information which would be turned into a right to terrorise fellow citizens and organizations, apart from taking the legislation on a path completely at a tangent to the objectives stated in the preamble of the RTI Act which tends to achieve transparency and accountability in the working of public authority.
vi) It is submitted that the regulator's right to call for information under any Act, in this case the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, is circumscribed by the objects of that Act and the satisfaction of the authorities that the information is required for carrying out the objectives of that Act. A regulator can not seek roving or fishing information from registered entities. Regulator can not be expected to seek information for the purpose of furnishing to an applicant CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 16 of 30 which would also disproportionately divert the resources of public authority.
vii) In this regard, it is most humbly submitted that the order dated May 25, 2009 passed by this Hon'ble Commission in the matter of Bhoj Raj Sahu Vs. SEBI, F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/ 01083, directing the CPIO, SEBI to obtain the information from the third party, i.e. BSE and provide it to the appellant has been challenged by SEBI as well as BSE by filing writ petitions before Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. The Hon'ble High Court has granted adinterim stay of the operation of the said order vide its order dated 21st July 2009. The stay was further continued on September 01, 2009 for a period of three weeks with a direction for listing of all the related matters together for final hearing. A copy of the order dated July 21, 2009 passed by Hon'ble Bombay High Court is enclosed herewith as AnnexureR1 [sic].
3. Without prejudice to the above, we now crave leave to deal with the facts of the case, efforts made by the CPIO, SEBI in collecting the information sought by the Appellant, and reply given by the Respondents to the Appellant."
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 17 of 30
31. Appellant has filed a writtenstatement dated NIL, interalia, reiterating the points he had made in his secondappeal petition which were principally focussed on the obligation of the public authority, viz. SEBI, to (a) collect, collate and provide to the appellant information held in private hands but under the control of SEBI and (b) to ensure that the information so provided was correct and accurate. He has demanded that he should be allowed to verify the files and records in the hands of the private thirdparties and that reply should be furnished to him correctly as per the requirement speltout in his RTIapplication. DECISION NOTICE:
32. In the context of the above, our decision is as follows: CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 18 of 30 Queries at Sl.Nos.1 and 2:
33. According to the appellant, the mirror files supplied to him by the ICICI Bank Limited through SEBI were transmitted to him by the CPIO, SEBI 'without verification'. It is his contention that SEBI as capital market regulators ought to have satisfied itself that the information a regulated entity such as ICICI Bank Limited was giving to the appellant who was an investor was accurate and correct.
34. According to the respondents, the information sought through these queries by the appellant was not available with SEBI in the normal course of business and was, therefore, sought from the thirdparty, i.e. the ICICI Bank Ltd, who forwarded the mirror file as sought by appellant. Appellate Authority disclaimed that no responsibility vested in SEBI to crosscheck the veracity of the information transmitted by the thirdparty for the appellant "through the proceeding of this nature under the RTI Act, particularly when the information/document in question is not in the custody of SEBI." It was not open to the appellant to demand that information be verified by SEBI before it was handed over to the appellant since SEBI was not itself the original holderoftheinformation. Decision:
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 19 of 30
35. We do not find much merit in appellant's demand that SEBI verify a set of information it had obtained from a thirdparty before transmitting it to the appellant. Section 2(f), under which the requested information was accessed by SEBI from the ICICI Bank, speaks about "information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force."
36. In the context of Section 2(f), which is about definition of "information", the abovequoted phrase implies that an information held by a private body but accessible under another law by a public authority should be construed to be an information "under the control of" the public authority within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act, which describes the right to information as the information "accessible under this Act which is held by or under the control of any public authority....". The words "under the control of", as contradistinguished from the word "held", used in Section 2(j), when read with the provision in Section 2(f) regarding information held by private entities, but otherwise accessible by a public authority, lead to an inference that an information in private hands but accessible under another law by a public authority, should be construed to be "under the control of" such public authority. It follows from it that, action for nondisclosure of information by the private entity, or for giving false, misleading, etc. information has to be under that 'other CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 20 of 30 law' ― the law which authorizes a public authority, control over a given information in private hands.
37. The question that has been raised is whether when a public authority, is transmitting any such information accessed by it through a thirdparty, under a given law, should such information be 'verified' by the public authority for its authenticity, before passing it on to the petitioner. In other words, can a CPIO transmitting such information, be penalized under any of the provisions of Section 18 and Section 20 for providing to the appellant incomplete, misleading or false information; and who, if at all, should be penalized for delay in transmission of information if it happens at the level of the thirdparty private entity where the information is known to be held.
38. There are no easy answers to these questions. But it would be safe to assume that since the proceedings under Section 18 and Section 20 can be only against CPIO or a deemedCPIO of a public authority, the penalty provisions will not apply to a private thirdparty, from where an information is sought to be accessed by the CPIO. The CPIO of the public authority, naturally cannot be penalized, since the public authority is not the holderoftheinformation requested, but is only "accessing" it at its source in a private entity.
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 21 of 30
39. A public authority or its CPIO, therefore, cannot be held responsible for the authenticity and the accuracy of any "accessed information"
originally held by a private thirdparty. It is equally true, that no penalty proceedings can be drawn against any employee of the private thirdparty for inaccuracies in the information transmitted to a petitioner under Section 2(f) through the CPIO of the public authority.
40. In the context of the above, it is safe to assume that the provision in Section 2(f) enjoining the CPIO of a public authority to access information in the hands of a private thirdparty, is only an enabling provision. The CPIO is only a facilitator and not the holder of the information and hence cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information he collects from the thirdparty private entity and transmits to the petitioner.
41. The question then arises as to who ensures the authenticity of the information transmitted in the above situation and who should be subject to penalty for any failure in regard to disclosure of the information such as nontransmission of the information, delay or providing false, misleading or incomplete information.
42. The answer to this query partly lies in the wording of Section 2(f) itself. The words "accessed by a public authority under any other law..." CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 22 of 30 hold the key. Since the CPIO derives the power to access the information held by a private thirdparty under "any other law", the failure by the private thirdparty to provide timely, and authentic information should be dealt with under that "other law". The CPIO in fact the public authority acting under that other law should be willing to invoke the provisions of the other law to penalize the holder of the information in the private thirdparty body under the provisions of the "other law" and not under the RTI Act. In this sense, penalty action against the private third party holderoftheinformation goes beyond the scope of the RTI Act and comes within the scope of the other Acts under which CPIO of a public authority derives the powers to elicit information from a private thirdparty. The decision in this regard can be taken only by the officers of the public authority including the CPIO.
43. It is, therefore, our view that under Section 2(f), a CPIO only acts as a facilitator for making possible for a petitioner to access an information held by a private thirdparty. Such CPIO cannot be made responsible for the accuracy of the information transmitted. The appellant should decide the legal recourse available to him to proceed against the private thirdparty for supplying him, what according to him may be, incorrect or misleading information. The only action which is possible under the RTI Act for this category of information is its collection from its private thirdparty source by the CPIO of the public CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 23 of 30 authority and its transmission to the petitioner, and nothing else. Penalty provisions of the RTI Act cannot be invoked in matters such as this.
44. We, therefore, hold that the public authority/CPIO of SEBI cannot be held responsible for the accuracy of the information provided to the appellant under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
Query at Sl.No.6:
45. The decision for queries at Sl.Nos.1 and 2 as above will apply to Sl.No.6 as well mutatismutandis. Appellant cannot be allowed to interrogate SEBI about how and why it discharged its duties as regulator of the capital market in a given case.
Query at Sl.No.7:
46. According to the appellant, respondents had informed him that IBL (D) as a Depository Participant (DP) had informed NSDL and IBL (B), "as a broker had informed BSE and NSE". Appellant claims that information regarding what action regulator took against them for the loss of documents of their customers and investors was not made available to him nor was he informed about the rules under which SEBI decided that no action need be taken for "not informing the regulator and conducting CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 24 of 30 their business unabatedly without complying with the laws of land under which they were granted licence..." [sic].
47. Respondents have countered this argument by stating that all information corresponding to this query was disclosed to the appellant. It was further stated on their behalf that appellant was not authorized to query the SEBI about why it chose not to take any action in a given situation. Such queries lie beyond the scope of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.
48. It is true that what appellant has solicited in this query is an explanation from the respondents about the manner of discharge of the latter's duties. This falls beyond the scope of Section 2(f) and respondents cannot be forced to reply to it.
Query at Sl.No.10:
49. According to the appellant, the information which he solicited "was only rules under which NSDL can enact laws in contravention of the laws enacted by proper legislation....."
50. Respondents have stated that they couldn't be obligated to provide answer to such a query, which was exploratory in nature and called upon CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 25 of 30 the respondents to explain the provisions of law for the appellant's convenience. Respondents were not required to provide to the appellant any professional advice.
51. The contention of the respondents is upheld. Quite clearly, appellant's query is interrogatory in nature seeking explanation from respondents about how and why a certain law was not invoked in a given situation. Such queries lie beyond the scope of Section 2(f). Respondents rightly declined to respond.
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 26 of 30 Quer y at Sl.No.11:
52. According to the appellant, what he wished to receive was the rules under which NSDL could suspend the active accounts for nonsubmission of AOFs, etc. He states that he wants to know from the regulator the rules under which it had allowed open contravention of the laws enacted by Legislature by IBL to carry out its business illegally.
53. Respondents have reacted to it by stating that this query is in the nature of seeking professional advice from them which they were not obliged to provide to the appellant under the provisions of the RTI Act. They further pointed out that the Appellate Authority had informed appellant that under Section 26 of the Depositories Act1996, a depository was authorized to enact byelaws consistent with the provisions of the Act and the regulations.
54. Respondents are right in declining to react to the above query of the appellant which was in the nature of demanding from them their explanation about 'whys' and 'hows' of certain action by the depository. Such queries lie beyond the scope of Section 2(f) and need not be answered.
Query at Sl.No.12:
CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 27 of 30
55. According to the respondents, appellant had not raised this query in his firstappeal before the Appellate Authority and, therefore, could not be allowed to raise it at the second appeal stage.
56. This matter is not before the Commission in secondappeal having not been brought up in the firstappeal initially. General
57. We have observed that the present petitioner and, several like him, have chosen to take recourse to the RTI Act for seeking information which very often is in the nature of resolution of outstanding grievances because they believed that they have no other recourse, or whatever is there, is implemented weakly. For example, this appellant asked where does he go for information if it is denied to him by the depository, the stock exchange and the market regulator. Such queries have been raised during RTI appellate proceedings by similar other applicants as well.
58. Since recourse to RTI Act is being taken by applicants on account of their impression that the regulatory system is not providing them adequate relief and support, we would urge the authorities concerned to reflect on these several points brought up by these petitioners, which may CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 28 of 30 lie beyond the ambit of the RTI Act, but are surely investorgrievances meriting resolution. Responsive action by the authorities concerned will prevent them (the applicants) from resorting to RTI action instead of invoking the provisions of the regulatory laws for relief.
59. Appeal disposed of with the above directions. Complaint No.CIC/AT/C/2009/000561:
60. Appellant, in his petition before the Commission, has also requested the Commission to "levy costs on the respondents as provided in the Act for denying me the information" and to award compensation to meet his toandfro expenses incurred for attending the hearings at the Commission.
61. Upon hearing the submissions of both parties, we don't find any malafide denial or concealment of information to the appellant that would warrant imposition of penalty on the CPIO.
62. As regards appellant's claim for award of cost of travel for attending the hearings at the Commission, we don't find merit in this request as it was open to the appellant to have excused himself from personal appearance. He could have filed his writtensubmissions instead. Since CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 29 of 30 it is he who filed the complaint, he cannot claim that others bear the cost for the action he himself initiated.
63. As such, there shall be no penalty or compensation proceeding in this regard.
64. Complaint closed.
(WAJAHAT HABIBULLAH) (A.N. TIWARI) Chief Information Commissioner Information Commissioner
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.
(D.C. SINGH) Deputy Registrar CIC_AT_C_2009_000561_M_43198.doc Page 30 of 30