Appellant files appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false.: Orders of AA under the RTI Act
The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of Lakhan Kumar Chavan v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4275 of 2021).
The appellant, Mr Lakhan Kumar Chavan had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 28th of April, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 25th of May, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 25th of May, 2021 on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 25th of May, 2021. In his application on the 28th of April, 2021, the appellate was seeking the following information with respect to Citrus Check Inn Private Ltd.:
- Please provide me information , As the Commission Agents or the Citrus Checks In n Company Ltd has to refund the Maturity amount…
- Are the Commission Agents are held responsible for the Refund of Maturity Amount, If yes State So that he/she is responsible for the refund of the Maturity.
In response to query numbers 1 and 2, the respondent had informed that the matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and no further directions for refund have been given yet. It was also informed that all orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter are available on the website of citrusroyal.com
The appellant had filed the appeal on the grounds that the information that he was provided with was incomplete, misleading or false. Further, the appellant has reiterated his queries in the appeal.
After pursuing the application and the response, appellant authority Mr. Baiwar noted that the respondent has clearly informed that the extant matter is sub-judice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and no directions for refund has been given yet. It is understood that the Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide order dated December 13, 2019, has directed the sale-cum-monitoring Committee headed by Justice (retired) J P Deodhar, to proceed with the sale of the properties of the company. He finds that the respondent has adequately addressed the queries by providing the information available with him and accordingly does not find any deficiency in the response.
Further, he also noted that then respondent also provided the details of the website for accessing the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Citrus Check Inn Private Ltd. The appellant can check the same from time to time, for updated information in the matter.
In view of the above-made observations, the Appeal was accordingly dismissed since the appellate authority found that there was no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent.