Central Information Commission
Mohit vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 5 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/2020/663166
Mr. Mohit ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी/Respondent
Securities & Exchange Board of
India, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell,
SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4A, G-
Block, BAndra- Kurla, Complex,
Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:-
RTI : 14-10-2019 FA : 13-11-2019 SA : 11-02-2020
CPIO : 13-11-2019 FAO : 12-12-2019 Hearing: 01-10-2021
ORDER
1. The appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO) Department Chemicals of Pharmaceuticals, Delhi. The appellant seeking information on four points, which are as under:-
"1. Names of BSE listed entities who have announced the successful conduct of AGM and yet BSE has not published their annual report and thus are in violation of 34 LODR.
2. Information submitted to BSE by scrip code 517403 that it has postponed AGM scheduled for 29 September 2019
3. The action ordered for default of 34 LODR by GIR NATURE VIEW RESORTS LIMITED AND the URLs on which NSE has published the Annual reports (if any) of this entity it has
4. The scrutinizer and voting results for AGM of year 2018 submitted to BSE by scrip codes 530389 and 530441"
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 13.11.2019 has provided a point wise reply to the appellant. Aggrieved by the reply furnished by the CPIO, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 13.11.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The first appellate authority vide its order dated 12.12.2019 upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO and disposed of his first appeal. 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. However, the notices send by the Commission in Second Appeals no. CIC/SEBIH/A/2020/664262, CIC/SEBIH/A/2020/664214 & CIC/SEBIH/A/2020/664288 by the speed post to the appellant have been returned back by the Department of Post with remark "the recipient has died". The respondent, Shri Santosh Sharma, CGM/ CPIO attended the hearing through audio-call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 27.09.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 13.11.2019, they have furnished a due reply to the appellant. The FAA vide its order dated 12.12.2019 has also upheld the reply furnished by the CPIO. He further submitted that with regards to query no. 01, 02 & 04 they have informed the appellant that no such information is being maintained by them. With regards to query no. 03 the appellant has not sought any specific information.
Decision:
6. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of the respondent and after perusal of records, observes that the queries of the appellant are in the nature of seeking explanation/clarification/confirmation from the CPIO. But the CPIO is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to compile information as per the desire of the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. As per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, the reasons/opinions/advices can only be provided to the applicants if it is available on record of the public authority. 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 be expected to do research work to deduce anything from the material therein and then supply it to him. However, the CPIO had already furnished a detailed reply including the clarification beyond the scope of the Act.
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."
8. The Commission therefore upholds the reply furnished by the CPIO vide letter dated 13.11.2019 and hence no further intervention by the Commission is required in the matter.
9. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
10. Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Neeraj Kumar Gupta (नीरजकु मारगु ाा)) सूचनाआयु ) Information Commissioner (सू दनांक / Date : 01-10-2021 Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणतस#यािपत ित) S. C. Sharma (एस. सी. शमा ), Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक), (011-26105682) Addresses of the parties:
1. CPIO Securities & Exchange Board of India, Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4A, G- Block, Bandra- Kurla, Complex, Bandra (East), Mumbai- 400051
2. Mr. Mohit