“Appellate Authority remits the matter to the respondent for de novo consideration of the queries of the appellant’s application.”: SEBI, Part 2.
V. Still better, in continuation of (III) & (IV) above, pl. give/ cite number, date etc. etc. of Hon’ble Court (Hon’ble SC of India or any other Judicial authority) directive (if any) over the issue of sealing the bank accounts of all Sahara group companies and in particular coop society as at Annexure No. 1.
VI. If names (companies/ coop societies) were identified by SEBI and its competent authority then pl. furnish details such as designation of officer of SEBI, his Dept/ Sectors & complete postal address. This information (sought) is in continuation of (III) and (IV) above.
VII. In respect to process/ procedure to be followed for sealing bank accounts (Sahara group companies coop societies) whether SEBI had done so (a) directly by contacting such companies/ coop societies (b) banks (its nodal authority) & branches directly. (c) through c/o Hon’ble Central Registrar of Coop societies New Delhi or Hon’ble Joint Secretary (credit and cooperative), concerned GOI Ministry new Delhi.
VIII. Please quote or cite number, dates of SEBI directive/ letter to VII (a), (b) (c) above.
The respondent, vide response dated June 07, 2021, informed that the request for providing the reply within 48 hours cannot be accepted, as the request has not been corroborated with substantive evidence warranting the invocation of proviso to section 7(1) of the RTI Act.
For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of the Office Memorandum dated November 28, 2013 issued by Ministry of personnel, Public grievances & Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, stated that “If the applicant belongs to below poverty line (BPL) category, he is not required to pay any fee. However, he should submit a proof in support of his claim as belonging to the below poverty line category. The application not accompanied by the prescribed application fee or proof of the applicant’s belonging to below poverty line category, as the case may be, shall not be a valid application under the Act.” It is understood that soon after receiving the application, the CPIO should check whether the applicant has made the payment of application fee or whether the applicant is a person belonging to a BPL category. If application is not accompanied by the prescribed fee or the BPL Certificate, it cannot be treated as an application under the RTI Act. In the extant matter, it was noted that the appellant has already submitted the requisite fees prescribed under the RTI Act. Further, the appellant has not provided any document along with her application to show as to why she should be considered as a person below poverty line. In view of this, it cannot be said that the respondent has erred in not considering the appellant as a person below the poverty line. Mr Baiwar found that the request of the appellant for returning the IPO of Rs. 10, does not warrant consideration at this stage. In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.
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.