Information desired through RTI with a view to redress appellants complaint to SEBI - SEBI does not maintain the documents being asked for - CIC: intimate the outcome with reference to action taken on his complaint & also provide copies of enquiry report
2 Oct, 2014Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Shantaram Walavalkar, submitted RTI application dated 11 March 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding his complaint dated 30.4.2012 against UTIMF etc. and RTI reply CPIO/AKS/AJ/1182013/ 5825 dated 8.3.2013, through a total of 10 points.
2. Vide reply 10 April 2013, CPIO furnished information to the appellant on point nos. 6, 7 & 9; denied information on point no. 1 u/s 8(1)(g) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, 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) of the RTI Act, 2005 and also denied information on point nos. 2, 3, 4, 5 & 8 on the ground that the requested information was in the nature of seeking opinion/ clarification which did not fall within 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; “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, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply on point nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 & 9, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 15 April 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging the he had been wrongly denied the requested information by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 15 May 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision on point nos. 2 to 8 and also directed him to provide additional information on point no. 9 to the appellant within 15 days.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant stated that he had made a complaint against UTI Mutual Fund to the Chairman, SEBI. The complaint has been pending from April 2012. Therefore, he had desired to know the names and designations of SEBI officers handling his case, whether the officers handling the case had the authority to do so, the procedure followed, etc. The appellant also stated that he was satisfied with the reply with reference to the information on the names and designations of SEBI officials handling his case.
5. The respondents submitted that they have given point wise replies to the appellant. They added that the names and details of officers along with their designations to whom a complaint can be made are already given on their website. The procedure for handling the complaints was also provided to him. They do not have a citizens’ charter. However, the regulations stipulating the time for settling a complaint are on their website. The replies to point numbers 4, 5, 6 and 8 were not clear and specific to the information being sought for. The respondents stated that they shall send clear replies with reference to these 4 points.
Decision Notice
6. The respondents will provide clear replies to the appellant on points 4, 5, 6 and 8 of the RTI application within a week of the receipt of the order of the Commission and send compliance to the Commission.
CIC/SM/A/2013/900897/MP
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Shantaram Walavalkar, submitted RTI application dated 10 February 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding his complaint dated 30.4.2012 against UTIMF etc., through a total of 5 points.
2. Vide reply 8 March 2013, CPIO furnished information to the appellant on point nos. 1, 2, 3 & 5; and also furnished part information on point number 4 but denied the rest of it on the ground that the requested information was in the nature of seeking opinion/ clarification which did not fall within 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; “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, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply on point nos. 5, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 10 March 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 26 March 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision on first part of point no. 5 and directed the CPIO to furnish information on latter part within 15 days. In compliance of the FAA’s order; vide letter dated 18 April 2013, CPIO furnished additional information to the appellant.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant stated that he had made a complaint against UTI Mutual Fund dated 30.4.2012 to the Chairman, SEBI and wanted to know the action taken against UTI Mutual Fund or Karvy. He also wanted the notes/comments, etc in the matter. The CPIO had given a point wise reply to him but the appellant stated that they had not passed on the RTI request to UTI Mutual Fund and if they had sought any information from UTIMF they should give an exact copy of the information sought from UTI, and the reply received from UTI.
5. The respondents stated that UTI is not a public authority. Therefore, the RTI application was not transferred under section 6(c) of the RTI Act to them. However, after the receipt of the Central Information Commission’s letter, the matter was taken up by them with the UTI. Based on the reply from the UTI, SEBI gave a letter to the appellant while providing an extract of the UTI reply.
Decision Notice
6. The respondents will provide the date of receipt of information from UTI and the copy of UTI’s letter severing what is not relevant to the appellant within a week of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
CIC/SM/A/2013/900898/MP
Facts:
1. The appellant, Shri Shantaram Walavalkar, submitted RTI application dated 15 March 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai; seeking information regarding his complaint dated 30.4.2012 against UTIMF etc., through a total of 8 points.
2. Vide reply 10 April 2013, CPIO furnished information to the appellant on point nos. 1, 2, 3, 7 & 8; but denied the rest on the ground that the requested information was in the nature of seeking opinion/ clarification/action which did not fall within 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; “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, 2005. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply on point nos. 1 to 6, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 13 April 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA). Vide order dated 15 May 2013, FAA upheld the CPIO’s decision and also directed the CPIO to furnish additional information on point no. 7 to the appellant within 15 days.
3. Not satisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred second appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard today. The appellant sought information about his complaint dated 30.4.2014 addressed to Chairman, SEBI. He sought information regarding UTI Retirement Pension Fund in his own case and in his wife’s case. He stated that the UTI is supposed to audit their Registrars but UTI has not provided him the basic documents. The UTI has to follow SEBI rules as SEBI controls mutual funds and also that SEBI should take action against UTI Mutual Fund for the lapses.
5. The respondents stated that SEBI does not maintain the documents being asked for and they do not have access to this information. As per CIC’s decision dated 24.8.2011 in K. L. Wadhwa vs. SEBI case, the public authority need not access information which it does not get in regular course of work. The respondents added that the complaint made by the appellant is under investigation and that it has been sent through centralized system of complaint redressal to the intermediary, i.e., UTI Mutual Fund, who will send a reply directly to the complainant. The record relating to the complaint will not be sent to SEBI.
Decision Notice
6. It is seen that the appellant is seeking information through RTI with a view to redress his complaint dated 30.4.2012. The respondents will, therefore, intimate the outcome with reference to action taken on his complaint and also provide copies of the enquiry report, if available, within 10 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission.
(Manjula Prasher)
Information Commissioner
Citation: Shri Shantaram Walavalkar v. Securities and Exchange Board of India in Appeal: No. CIC/SM/A/2013/900896/MP CIC/SM/A/2013/900897/MP CIC/SM/A/2013/900898/MP