The real intention of legislators in Section 2(f)of the RTI act is to provide the right information of public affairs to a public authority – THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
An application was filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 against the respondents because the information sought by the appellant has not been properly provided by the respondent and the appellant further submitted that the forgery/manipulation of accounts was done by UTI AMC the appeal was heard by ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the RTI Act in Appeal No. 4578 of 2021
The appellant in queries no 1and 2 inquired about diary number and file no and the respondent responded that there is no separate diary number and file number. The respondent also informed that the letter was identified by complaint no. PMOPG/E/2021….68 . in query number 3, 5, and 6 the following information about action taken by the board and other things the responded in response stated that the complaint was perused and was found that the queries raised were without any factual data and that the complaint seems to be a personal dispute about non-receipt of legal dues. and some further responses were given by the respondent.
The authority pursued all the queries and responses and noted that the information has been provided after severing the names and identities of SEBI officials. the non-disclosure of information relating to the name and identity of official(s) the authority relied on H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors and Kulwinder Singh vs. CPIO, SEBI and it was concluded that the disclosure of information relating to the name, etc. of SEBI official(s), is exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act further the appellant submitted that the forgery/manipulation of accounts was done by UTI AMC in this the authority relies on Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow finds that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the RTI Act. And from the above submissions, it was decided that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order reviewed by Naveen Sharma