Case Law Details
Avinash Chandra Trivedi Vs CPIO (SEBI Appellate Authority)
It is observed that the Action History of the complaint reveals the action taken and the date-wise progress disposal of the complaint. It is understood that all the complaints which are lodged in the SCORES system and the related correspondence, can be accessed online on SCORES website under the tab “View Complaint Status” by providing the complaint registration number and password, which is allotted at the time of registering the complaint.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF SEBI Appellate Authority
1. The appellant had filed an application dated June 25, 2020 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated July 13, 2020, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated July 15, 2020 against the said response dated July 13, 2020. On consideration of the appeal, the matter was remitted to the respondent vide order dated August 14, 2020 passed in Appeal Number 3852 of 2020, for reconsidering the application dated June 25, 2020 and providing appropriate response to the appellant in terms of the RTI Act. The appellant was provided with response dated July 10, 2020. The respondent filed revised appeal dated August 5, 2020 (received by the Office of Appellate Authority on August 06, 2020). 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 has filed the appeal on the ground that he is not satisfied with the response provided to query number 1 of his application dated June 25, 2020. In view of the submission in his appeal, I am only dealing with the said query in this appeal.
3. Query number 1 –The appellant, vide query number 1, had sought the following information with respect to complaint filed by him on SCORES portal
1. Please provide certified copies of the fake/forged documents filed by the complainant as recorded by SEBI while disposing and closing the above-mentioned subjected complaint.
4. I note that the respondent has sought the certified copies of the fake/forged documents filed by the complainant, as recorded by SEBI, while disposing of the said complaint. On perusal of the available record, it is observed that SEBI has not recorded that fake/forged documents were filed by the complainant. It is the complainant’s own statement which was made in the application dated June 25, 2020.
5. Further, on consideration, it appears that the query is not clear or specific. In this context, I note that in the matter of Mrs. Bina Saha vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated November 6, 2012), the Hon’ble CIC held: “It must be remembered that Section 2(f) of the RTI Act defines information as a material or virtual record. The citizen has every right to get copies of such records held by any public authority including the SEBI. However, in order to get the copies of such records, the information seeker has to specify the details of the records she wants. In fact, section 6(1) of the RTI Act very clearly states that the information seeker has to specify the particulars of the information sought by him or her.” In view of these observations, I find that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is not clear or specific.
6. I note that the respondent, in response to the query, has already provided copy of the Action History of the complaints along with the relevant letters received from HPCL. It is observed that the Action History of the complaint reveals the action taken and the date-wise progress disposal of the complaint. It is understood that all the complaints which are lodged in the SCORES system and the related correspondence, can be accessed online on SCORES website under the tab “View Complaint Status” by providing the complaint registration number and password, which is allotted at the time of registering the complaint. I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Therefore, I find no deficiency in the respondent’s response to the appellant’s application.
7. 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.
