No obligation to provide clarification or opinion regarding a future event under RTI Act: SEBI .

Appeal No. 43521 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43521 Dahyalal Ganeshbhai Panchal CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 03 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005against the said response dated June 01 2021. I have carefully considered the application the response and the appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. 2. Grounds of appeal On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply to query numbers 1 3 4 and 5. In view of the submissions of the appellant I am only dealing with the said queries in this appeal. 3. Query number 1 The appellant vide query number 1 inter alia sought the following information pertaining to Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd.held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to InformationAct the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. In view of the same I find that the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification or opinion under the RTI Act. Accordingly I am of the opinion that no interference of this forum is warranted at this stage. 7. Query number 3 The appellant vide query number 3 inter alia sought the following information 3. With respect to his complaint number 1…7 2020 filed before CID crime office Gandhinagar the appellant sought information whether investigation in this office has been entrusted by SEBI. If the same is entrusted by SEBI whether an inquiry is made in writing by SEBI about the progress of this investigation. The respondent in response to query number 3 informed that SEBI in compliance with the order dated October 31 2018 had forwarded the aforesaid order to the Director General & Inspector General of Police West Bengal for information. The respondent also informed that the query with regard to whether there is a provision for sending a reminder is in the nature of enquiry inquisition and thus cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 9. On perusal of the first part of the query I note that the respondent has categorically informed that the copy of the order dated October 31 2018 passed in the matter of SICCL has been forwarded to Director General & Inspector General of Police West Bengal for information. I note that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 10. Further on perusal of the second part of the query and the response provided thereto I agree with the observation of the respondent that the same is in the nature of enquiry inquisition. I find that the said Appeal No. 43521 queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2of the RTI Act. In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 11. Query numbers 4 and 5 The appellant vide query numbers 4 and 5 inter alia sought the following 4. Whether SEBI can hand over the investigation against this company to the CBI to help in getting the refund of the deposits of the investors stuck in the company. 5. Whether SEBI can file a case against SICCL in the Economic Offence Bench of the Supreme Court or in the Economic Offence Bench of any High Court of the State to help the investors in getting refund of the deposits stuck in the company. 12. The respondent in response to query numbers 4 and 5 observed that the queries are in the nature of enquiry inquisition and thus cannot be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 13. On consideration I agree with the response provided by the respondent and I also find that the same is that nature of seeking clarification opinion of the respondent. In this context reference is made to the matter of Parvinder Singh vs. Public Information Officer under RTI wherein the Hon’ble CIC held that “12. Nevertheless Commission has gone through the case records and on the basis of proceedings observes the information sought by the appellant is clarificatory in nature and thus doesn t qualify as information as per Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Further PIO is required to provide information as available with them in form of records documents memos emails opinions advises press releases circulars orders log books contracts reports papers samples models data material held in any form and not supposed to create information or interpret information in respect of clarifications hypothetical & futuristic queries.” In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. In view of the above observations I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Place: Mumbai Date: July 27 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: When somebody seeks information regarding the time to be taken for the recovery proceedings to be settled, then the person who is to reply does not have an obligation to provide any clarification or opinion under the RTI Act, as it is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion regarding a future event. The Appellate Authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising Mr. Anand Baiwar, who adjudicated in the matter of Dahyalal Ganeshbhai Panchal Vs. CPIO, SEBI, MUMBAI. (Appeal No. 4355 of 2021), dealt with an issue where the appellant appealed on the ground of dissatisfaction with the reply to query numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5 provided by the respondent. In the present case, the appellant had filed an application on 3rd May 2021 Under RTI Act, 2015. To this, the respondent had also replied through a Letter. Upon the reply of the respondent, the appellant filed an appeal.    In the first query, the appellant had asked for information regarding how much time was required for the recovery proceedings to be settled. To which the respondent replied that the recovery proceedings had already been initiated by the Recovery and Refund Department of Eastern Regional Office, by issuing a recovery certificate. But the appellant submitted in his appeal that the reply to the 1st query was incomplete and partial. The 3rd query of the appellant was whether the investigation had been entrusted by SEBI. And, if such was entrusted by SEBI, whether an inquiry was made in writing by SEBI about the progress of this investigation.  To this, the respondent replied that SEBI forwarded the order to the Director General &amp; Inspector General of Police, West Bengal, for information. Further the respondent also informed the appellant that the query as to whether there was a provision for reminder, could not be construed as seeking “information” defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act, because such was in the nature of enquiry/inquisition. Through query 4 and 5, the appellant sought Whether SEBI could hand over the investigation against the company to the CBI to help in getting the refund of the deposits of the investors stuck in the company as well as Whether SEBI could file a case against SICCL in the Economic Offence Bench of the Supreme Court or in the Economic Offence Bench of any High Court of the State, to help the investors in getting a refund of the deposits stuck in the company. The respondent replied to this and informed the appellant that the queries were in the nature of enquiry/inquisition and thus could not be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. It was observed that regarding the 1st query the respondent was not obligated to provide any clarification or opinion under the RTI Act, as the query was regarding a future event. For the 3rd, 4th and 5th query it was observed that the respondent had rightly answered the question and as those three queries were of the nature of enquiry/inquisition, hence such could not be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Thereby no deficiency was found in the respondents reply and hence the appeal was accordingly dismissed.