0

“It is open for the appellant to file a fresh appeal as per law, if he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the respondent…”: Appellate Authority, SEBI.

The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Amarjeet Singh adjudicated in the matter of Swaminath Singha v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4296 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The appellant, Mr Swaminath Singha had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 3rd of April, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which SEBI received on the 9th of April. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 7th of May, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 7th of May, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 28th of May, 2021.

On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is aggrieved by the response provided by the respondent, wherein the date of the application is mentioned as April 14, 2021. The appellant has also stated that no such letter dated April 14, 2021 (received by SEBI on April 09, 2021), has been sent by the appellant to SEBI.

On perusal of the documents available on record, it was noted that the application dated 3rd of April, 2021 was received by SEBI on 9th of April, 2021, and the response was issued on May 07, 2021, which is within the stipulated time as laid down in RTI Act. Further, it appears that the date of application was inadvertently mentioned as April 14, 2021, in the response provided by the respondent.

It was found that the respondent has provided the reply to the application dated 3rd of April, 2021 filed under the RTI Act. Therefore, Mr Singh found that nothing survives in the appeal and the same has become infructuous. It is, however, open for the appellant to file a fresh appeal as per law, if he is not satisfied with the reply provided by the respondent.

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.

Click here to read the entire order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *