BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2085 of 2015
Ravi Ramaiya
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

:
Vs.

Appellant
Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated December 19, 2014, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated
January 19, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated January
21, 2015, against the said response. 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.

In this appeal, the appellant has made a request for a personal hearing in the matter. In this
regard, I note that as per the RTI Act, there is no such obligation on the part of the First
Appellate Authority to give disposal after giving hearing, as was held by the Honble CIC in
the matters of Mr. Milind Hemant Kotak, Mumbai vs. Canara Bank (Decision dated April 24, 2008)
and Mr R.K Jain vs. UPSC (Decision dated March 10, 2014).

3.

From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to his
application wherein he had sought information inter alia in respect of details pertaining to RTI
applications received by SEBI alongwith Orders passed in the matter of Veritas (India) Limited.

4.

In this appeal, while reiterating his request for information, the appellant has inter alia
submitted that:
i.

ii.

iii.

" this section [Section 7(9) of the RTI Act] is not an exemption like Section 8 and 9 and casts an
obligation upon the public authority to provide information and does not authorize it to deny information as
attempted by (the respondent).
there are various orders dealing with applicability of Section 7(9) where it is held that information
cannot be denied under this section. Your good self may refer Appeal No. CIC/WB/A/2007/01042
dated 4.11.2007, CIC/OP/A/2009/000204-AD, CIC/OK/A/2008/01256/SG.0937, which
clearly support the stand that information has to be provided in whatever form possible and 7(9) cannot be
invoked to deny the information.
the (respondent's) stand to deny information under Section 8(1)(h) is an afterthought and an excuse as
it might reveal something detrimental to the officers involved in the investigation."

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Page 1 of 2

5.1

In his response to the queries at point nos. 18 of the appellant's application (regarding details
pertaining to RTI applications received by SEBI), I note that the respondent inter alia informed
the appellant that the information sought by him was not maintained by SEBI in the format
sought by him. Further, the appellant was informed that collating such information would lead
to disproportionate diversion of the resources of SEBI and was therefore, exempted under
Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. In this context, I note that the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Shri
Praveen Agarwal vs. SEBI (Decision dated October 1, 2008), had held that: "It is true that given the
volume and the complexity of the information requested by the appellant, it would be impossible to locate and
collate it without substantial research effort. A public authority cannot be obliged to engage in it for the benefit
of an applicant, who may not be the only and, the last such applicant. Many more would want to have this
privilege which doubtless would lessen the applicant's research burden while increasing it for the public authority.
Considering the fact that the information requested is unarguably in the public domain and that its range and
volume is such that it would attract provisions of Section 7(9) of the Act, it is not possible to authorize its
disclosure in the form in which the appellant had requested." In view of the aforesaid, I find no
deficiency in the respondent's response.

5.2

Further, as regards the queries at point nos. 112 of the appellant's application [regarding
Orders passed in the matter of Veritas (India) Limited], I note that the respondent while
invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, informed the appellant that the
matter was pending before the Hon'ble Securities Appellate Tribunal and had not yet reached
its conclusive end; therefore, disclosure of information may impede the aforesaid proceedings.
In this context and upon a consideration of the aforementioned, I find that disclosure of
information prior to completion of proceedings would be premature to the process of
investigation. In this context, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Honble CIC in the
matter of Shankar Sharma and Ors. vs. Director General of Income Tax (Inv)-II & CPIO, Department of
Income Tax (Decision dated 10.07.2007); Smt. Durgesh Kumari vs. Income Tax Department (Decision
dated 26.8.2011), Shri. Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, New
Delhi (Decision dated 20.07.2011), Shri Narender Bansal, Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Delhi (Decision dated January 13, 2014), Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision dated November
28, 2014 in F. No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000196) and Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision
dated December 19, 2014 in F. No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000834/MP). In view of the aforesaid, I
find no deficiency in the respondent's response.

6.

I, therefore, find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai
Date: February 18, 2015

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2