“Appellant Authority found that the respondent is not obliged to provide information where the query is vague and not specific.”: SEBI, Part 3.
Without prejudice to the above observation, it was noted that the respondent has provided the Action History and the Action Taken report with respect to SCORES complaint number SEBIE/MH20/00….68/1. Further, the respondent also informed regarding the current status of action taken by SEBI in the matter of Varun Global Ltd. and Varun Resources Ltd.
The respondent also categorically stated that the above status has been informed to the appellant in reply to all the complaints filed by the him since 2020. Accordingly, Mr Baiwar was of the opinion that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Therefore, the response does not call for interference of this forum.
On perusal of available records, it was noted that the appellant has filed multiple applications seeking information related to his complaints filed on SCORES and also seeking the ATRs pertaining to his complaints. It is also observed that the copies of Action History/ ATRs pertaining to specific complaints regarding Varun Global Ltd./Varun Resources Ltd., have been provided previously by the respondent and the same has been acknowledged by the appellant in his applications.
In this context, it is pertinent to mention herein that the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the matter of Public Information Officer, Registrar (Administration) vs. B. Bharathi., (Order dated 17.09.2014 in W.P. No. 26781/2013), has held that “… The action of the second respondent in sending numerous complaints and representations and then following the same with the RTI applications; that it cannot be the way to redress his grievance; that he cannot overload a public authority and divert its resources disproportionately while seeking information and that the dispensation of information should not occupy the majority of time and resource of any public authority, as it would be against the larger public interest…“
The Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Samir Sardana vs. CPIO, Mormugao Port Trust (order dated March 01, 2021) also referred to the said observations made by the Hon’ble High Court, while dismissing the appeal. It was also noted that in the context of misuse of provisions of RTI Act, the Hon’ble CIC, in R. P. Verma vs. CPIO, Ordinance Factories (Decision dated September 5, 2018) strongly criticised the practice of filing multiple applications on similar matters.
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.