“Is silence the answer?” says Respondent in the court of SEBI, Part 3.
With respect to query number 5, it was noted that the appellant sought information regarding action taken by SEBI after receiving documents of the company on 14th of January, 2020. It is understood that recovery proceedings have been initiated by SEBI against the company and its directors under Recovery Certificate no. Certificate No 2654_A.P No 5429 & 5430 of 2019 (details available on the SEBI website under the link: “Enforcement” and sub–link “Recovery Proceedings”), which are ongoing. It is also understood that relevant information regarding recovery proceedings are made available on the SEBI website from time to time.
With respect to first part of query number 6, it is observed that the appellant sought whether the letter referred therein, was responded to. Mr Amarjeet Singh did not agree with the respondent that the said query does not fall under the purview of information as defined under the RTI Act, since response to the query would be an answer either affirmative or negative, depending on the available records. Therefore, the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate answer.
The respondent, in response to the query number 8, observed that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and hence cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. On consideration, it was found that the last part of the query “Is silence the answer?”, is in the nature of seeking clarification from the respondent. With respect to first part of the query “I prayed to your goodself to grant advance/ loan from my dues. Have you taken any decision on my genuine prayer?”, Mr Amarjeet Singh is of the opinion that the same warrants reconsideration since the appellant sought information regarding decision taken on his request to grant advance/loan from his dues. Therefore, the respondent shall reconsider the request and provide an appropriate response.
In view of these observations, Appellate Authority Mr Amarjeet Singh remitted the application dated April 14, 2021 to the respondent for reconsidering query number 1, first part of query number 6 and first part of query number 8, and to provide appropriate response within 15 working days from the date of receipt of this order. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of
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.