Central Information Commission
Prerit Misra vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 12 August, 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/SEBIE/A/2019/660770
Mr. Prerit Misra ... अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO ... ितवादी /Respondent
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 : 22-11-2019 FA : 25-11-2019 SA : 31-12-2019
CPIO : 19-11-2019 FAO : 17-12-2019 Hearing : 10-08-2021
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 seeking information is as under:-
"With respect to the disposals of our RTIs 50652 and 50672. Please advise who is the competent authority who has authorized blocking of our email address".
2. As the CPIO had not provided the requested information, the appellant filed the first appeal dated 25.11.2019 requesting that the information should be provided to him. The order of the first appellate authority, if any, is not there on the record of the Commission. 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.
Page 1 of 3Hearing:
3. The appellant attended the hearing through audio-call. The respondent, Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, Chief General Manager/ CPIO along with MS. Pramila Sridhar, Deputy General Manager, attended the hearing through audio- call.
4. The respondent submitted their written submissions dated 12.07.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
5. The appellant submitted his written submissions dated 04.08.2021 and the same has been taken on record.
6. The appellant submitted that complete and correct information has not been provided to him by the respondent on his RTI application dated 22.11.2019. He further submitted that in order to save the corrupt officials who are involved in the corrupt practices inside the public authority; the sought information has being deliberately withheld by the respondent.
7. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 19.11.2019, they have informed the appellant that the decision for blocking his E-mail address was taken by the competent authority under their official capacity. Further disclosure of such information is barred under Section 8 (1)(g) & 8 (1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
Decision:
8. The Commission, after hearing the submissions of both the parties and after perusal of records, observes that the appellant has sought information regarding the name of the competent authority who has blocked his E- mail address. The respondent admitted that the decision in this regard has been taken as per the procedure and approval of the competent authority and hence denied the information under Sections 8(1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
9. The Commission in this regard referred to the definition of information defined u/s 8(1)(g) & (j) of the RTI Act, 2005 which are reproduced as below:
"(g) information the disclosure of which would endanger the life or physical safety of any person or identify the source of information or assistance given in confidence for law enforcement or security purposes;
(j) information which relates to personal information the disclosure of which has not relationship to any public activity or interest, or which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual unless the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer or the appellate authority, as the case may be, is satisfied that the larger public interest justifies the Page 2 of 3 disclosure of such information: Provided that the information, which cannot be denied to the Parliament or a State Legislature shall not be denied to any person".
10. In the light of the above mentioned ratios, the Commission is of the view that the allegation of corruption as alleged by the appellant cannot be considered as reason for disclosure of information as prima facie no such case had been made out by the appellant and hence the Commission upholds the reply furnished by the respondent vide its letter dated 19.11.2019. Therefore, no further intervention by this Commission is required in the matter.
11. With the above observations, the appeal is disposed of.
12. 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 : 10-08-2021
Authenticated true copy
(अिभ मािणत स 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. Prerit Misra
Page 3 of 3