Appellant: Whether UTI or Karvy had taken any permission from SEBI for display some of the information on a consolidated basis in SOA - Respondent: Copy of e-mail was provided after severing the names & designations - CIC: Reply accepted
5 Dec, 2015ORDER
1. The appellant Shri Shantaram Walavalkar submitted RTI application dated 22.08.2014 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai seeking information (111) with reference to SEBI’s letter No. CPIO/AKS/SB/CIC/900986 – 900897/201424415 dated 19.8.2014 – (AAA) copy of letter/e-mail sent to UTI by SEBI against which e-mail dated 06.02.2013 received from UTI, (BBB) copy of citizen charter at SBBI (not concerned division of SEBI); (222) with reference to CPIO/AKS/900898/2014/242611 dated 20.8.2014 sought to know if UTI or Karvy had taken any permission from SEBI for display in the SOA some of the information of on a consolidated basis instead of being shown as separate entries. If yes, provide copy of correspondence and approval; and (333) copy of status, enquiry report, noting on files regarding his complaint dated 29.08.2013.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 30.09.2014 provided copy of the e-mail sent by SEBI to UTI after severing the name, designation and identity of officials; on point BBB the appellant was informed that no information was available with SEBI; on point 222 the CPIO informed the appellant that his queries were in the nature of seeking opinion/clarification of SEBI and therefore did not fall with the definition of “information”, as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; of the RTI Act; on point 333 the appellant was informed that no enquiry had been conducted in the matter and hence no enquiry report was available on the same. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO, the appellant filed an appeal on 07.10.2014 before the first appellate authority. The FAA vide order dated 07.11.2014 concurred with the decision of the CPIO.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission on points (AAA) & (222).
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant vide his e-mail dated 29.06.2015 expressed his inability to attend the hearing. In his second appeal filed before the Commission the appellant stated that the respondents had not provided attachments to the e-mail sent by SEBI to UTI in response to point AAA and CPIO had rejected information on point (222) on the grounds that seeking opinion/ clarification did not fall with the ambit of information as defined u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, 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; of the RTI Act. He sought information whether SEBI had done UTI audit or not and SEBI’s reply could be as simple as yes or no. The respondents stated that the appellant sought a copy of the e-mail sent by SEBI to UTI which was provided to the appellant after severing the names and designations of the officials concerned. The said e-mail was sent to UTI to respond to a particular order of the CIC in respect of the appellant’s earlier second appeal. A copy of the reply sent by UTI in response to the said e-mail had been already provided to the appellant vide letter dated 19.08.2014 in compliance with the order of the Commission in case No,. CIC/SM/A/2013/ 900897/MP. Further, a letter dated 8.4.2015 has also been sent to the appellant by SEBI in respect of his various e-mails in the matter, inter-alia informing the appellant that the said matter has been examined and the matter referred to by the appellant has been resolved and accordingly closed. In respect of the appellant’s contention on point 222, the appellant sought details regarding the audit of UTI. His query under the said point was in the nature of seeking explanation/ clarification without giving any specific details. The appellant was not present to point out any shortcomings.
5. The Commission accepts the submissions of the respondents and holds that the appellant had been appropriately replied to by the respondents in response to his RTI application. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Shantaram Walavalkar v. Securities & Exchange Board of India in Appeal: No. CIC/MP/A/2014/002291