CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2009/000508
Dated, the 25th August, 2009.
Appellant : Shri Vishwas Sitaram Risbood
Respondents : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
This matter came up for hearing through videoconferencing (VC)
on 12.08.2009. Appellant and respondents were notified by the
Commission to be present at NIC’s VC facility at Mumbai. When the
hearing commenced, appellant was found to be absent, while the
respondents represented by Ms.Jeny John were present. Commission
conducted the hearing from its New Delhi office.
2. Appellant’s RTI-application dated 04.10.2008 was replied to by
the CPIO on 21.11.2008 and the Appellate Authority gave his decision in
the first-appeal on 30.01.2009.
3. As stated in his second-appeal petition, appellant’s present
appeal is in respect of the following items of queries contained in his
RTI-application:-
“A) Copies of Internet Notes / Papers that must have been
circulated within UTIAMC with notings / Comments thereon
pertaining to Termination of the plan.
B) Copy of reference made / Letter written to Government of
India by UTIAMC regarding / Seeking approval for
termination of the plan.
C) Copy of Letter received by UTIAMC from Government of
India conveying approval for termination of the SCUP.”
4. Respondents had stated in their written and oral submissions
before the Commission in regard to the response to the above queries
that these mostly pertain to copies of certain letters and
correspondence which have already been transmitted to the appellant
on 08.07.2009 on the basis of the order of the Appellate Authority dated
30.01.2009. It has been further stated on behalf of the respondents
that that UTI AMC ⎯ the third-party who holds information requested
AT-25082009-19.doc
Page 1 of 2
Sl. ‘A’ at paragraph 3 above ⎯ expressed their inability to part with the
information on account of its volume, which according to them, would
involve huge processing cost and thereby come within the scope of
Section 7(9) of the RTI Act. As regards items B and C, respondents have
taken the plea that this information has since been transmitted to the
appellant through their communication dated 08.07.2009 following
Appellate Authority’s orders.
5. Appellant has also filed a rejoinder dated 22.07.2009 in relation
with the second-appeal. From the text of the rejoinder, it is seen that
the points he has highlighted are those mentioned at Sl. ‘B’ and ‘C’ in
paragraph 3 above. It is seen that the respondents have now stated
before the Commission that response to these two queries has been
furnished to the appellant on 08.07.2009. There is no mention in the
rejoinder or in any of the submission of the appellant, of his receiving
this response from the respondents. Presumably, CPIO’s communication
dated 08.07.2009 had not reached the appellant when he filed his
rejoinder dated 22.07.2009.
6. On the basis of appellant’s rejoinder dated 22.07.2009, I have
confined the scope of this second-appeal to appellant’s queries at
Sl. ‘B’ and ‘C’ at paragraph 3 above. As stated by the respondents,
replies to these queries have already been furnished to the appellant on
08.07.2009. In the absence of the appellant at the hearing, it was not
possible for the Commission to verify whether he received the
respondents’ reply and, if so, whether he was satisfied with it.
7. In view of the above, I’m not in a position to interrogate the
respondents further on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, the appeal
is directed to be closed.
8. Appeal disposed of with these directions.
9. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
AT-25082009-19.doc
Page 2 of 2