RTI application seeking information regarding purchase of shares of Hindustan Lever Ltd.
The appellant had sent several letters/representations/complaints to the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in respect of purchase of some shares of the Hindustan Lever Ltd. Later she filed two applications under the Right to Information (RTI) Act with the SEBI seeking information about the action taken on the issues raised by her as well as the copies of the correspondence made with various entities in this regard. The Public Information Officer (PIO) provided some information to the appellant.
During the hearing before the Central Information Commission (CIC), the husband of the appellant pointed out that the PIO had not provided the entire information that had been sought in both the RTI applications and that some selective disclosures had been made. The respondent submitted that much of the available information had already been provided. The appellant had requested that the SEBI should take adequate action against the broker/ sub broker through whom the shares had been purchased. He further argued that if any action had been taken the PIO should inform him about that and if no action had been taken he should unambiguously state that.
View of CIC
The Commission observed that the PIO should again write to the appellant and provide categorical and unambiguous information against each of the queries made in both the RTI applications. The CIC also directed the PIO to provide the appellant any material record existing in the form of correspondence; and if there is no material record for any of these queries the PIO should clearly mention that there are no records available.
Citation: Ms. Pratibha Rohatgi v. Securities and Exchange Board of India in File No.CIC/SM/A/2012/000223 & 224
RTI Citation : RTIFI/2012/CIC/811
Click here to view original RTI order of Court / Information Commission