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.”: 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 Ravindra Singh v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4354 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The appellant, Mr Ravindra Singh had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 1st of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, which SEBI received on the 9th of June. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 2nd of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 2nd of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 30th of June, 2021.

The appellant, vide his application dated June 01, 2021, inter alia, sought information regarding status of complaint no. NSDL/SS/S1….0/SCORES/0…5/1/2020 logged with NSDL SEBI. The appellant also sought reason for closure of the said complaint.

The respondent, in response to the queries, informed that reply to a similar application dated 22nd of January, 2021 has been sent vide reply dated 10th of February, 2021. The respondent also enclosed the copy of the said reply dated 10th of February, 2021.

The appellant has filed an appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false.

It was observed that the appellant had filed an appeal dated 24th of February, 2021, on the ground that no response was provided with respect to his application dated 22nd of January, 2021, within the time limit. This forum, vide order dated March 19, 2021 (in Appeal no. 4110 of 2021) had held that the appeal was infructuous as the response was provided within the stipulated time as laid down in the RTI Act. The said order also stated that “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.” A copy of the response dated February 10, 2021 was also enclosed with the said order.

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. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of.

Click here to read the entire order.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

Open chat