Dear Marathe What do you think RTI is? you ask questions to PIO and then you will give answers you want in appeal to PIO using the Apellate officer?
In RTI you must apply to concerned department. SEBI can hardly be considered as concerned public authority for tigers. This RTI is then highly irresponsible. You should have applied to MoEF for EIA report. S D Sharma --- In [email protected], ajay marathe <marathe.a...@...> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > My apologies for a lengthy message , may interest Animal lovers & those > interested in SEBI > > Ref:-Tiger Habitat at Chandrapur Maharashtra to be affected by Adani coal > mine – SEBI – Inspection of documents > > Background : Adani Group came out with a Public Issue a few months back – > the coal mine proposed to be located near Chandrapur Maharashtra is going to > affect the Tiger habitat near Chandrapur . I ( being an animal lover) am > very curious to know about how SEBI have gone ahead & cleared the public > issue. > > The info asked / Reply recd from Dr. Anil Kumar Sharma of SEBI > > 1) I would like to know the Manager at SEBI dealing with Adani Power. > His name, designation, qualifications./ Reply—The info sought pertains to > information of SEBI officials , the same is exempted from disclosure in > terms of section 8(1)j of the RTi act. Moreover if the information of this > nature is disclosed it could endanger the life and liberty and physical > safety of a person hence the same is exempted from disclosure in terms of > section 8(1) (g) of the RTI act > > 2) Names & designations of SEBI employees who have received Adani Power > issue allotment ( either thru public issue or any other means) ./ Reply—The > info pertains to personal info of a third party , the same is exempted from > disclosure as per 8(1)(d) & 8(1) (j) of RTI act 2005. Further the same does > not appear to be in the nature of serving any public activity of interest. > However you may note that as per SEBI ( Employee Service Regulations ) 2001 > No employee shall make any direct or indirect investment in equity and > equity related instruments including convertible debentures and warrants > except units of Mutual funds non convertible bonds and non-convertible > debentures and in rights issues in respect of the shares already held by > them. Further as per code of conduct for SEBI employees any sale of such > existing investments should also be declared within 15 days of the sale. > > 3) Names of site visited by SEBI employees of Adani power./ Reply---- > SEBI gives observations on the offer documents filed with it by the Lead > Manager to the issue based on disclosure requirements stipulated in SEBI > guidelines and the disclosures made in the offer documents. SEBI guidelines > do not provide for any inspection of Issuer company’s site by SEBI > officials. Hence the question of SEBI officials visiting the project site of > any issuer company does not arise. > > 4) Names of Politicians who have stake in Adani Power & amount of > stake/ Reply—SEBI is not in possession of such data. > > 5) Names of Politicians and bureaucrats and govt officials who have > communicated with SEBI ( telephonically or verbally or thru note or thru > letter) about this issue./ Reply--- The related dept is SEBI has not recd > any letter or note from MPs / MLAs / bureaucrats / govt officials in this > regard. > > 6) I would like to inspect and obtain photocopies of all the documents > taken into account by SEBI while deciding on the issue ( I will decide the > documents copies to be obtained after inspection) Please let me know > convenient days ( for e.g. Mon to Friday post lunch) & person to be > contacted for inspection./ Reply--- The info sought is not specific but > general in nature. Please note that you may mention the specific list of > documents that you require for inspection. > > 7) I would like to know the action taken, if any, on my complaint to > SEBI about Adani Power( my email dated July 21, 2009 addressed to > s...@.../ Reply—SEBi is not in receipt of such mail from you. > > I filed my appeal arguing :-- > > A) that the public issue is controversial & the proposed project site ( coal > mine) is going to affect the forest & wild life & also Tiger, our national > animal. There are only about 1400 tigers left in India as against human > population of about 1.2 billion( & growing at an alarming rate). The entire > 494 page prospectus does not find any mention about the issue ( tiger) > whatsoever. There is already a local group opposing the project on the this > basis. There are also press reports about the same. Also cited duties of > citizens as per Article 51 A ( g) of the constitution “ to protect and > improve the natural environment including forests , lakes rivers & wild life > and to have compassion for living creatures” For the reasons mentioned above > it is in the larger public interest that since this vital info is missing > from the prospectus the general public would have a right to know about the > person dealing with Adani from SEBI( & his qualification for his fitness to > do the job). > > > > B) Also argued that SEBI itself had filed criminal complaint( > CC/686/misc/2004) against Mr. Rajesh Adani & Ms. Shilin R. Adani . SEBI has > also filed one more criminal complaint against Adani export ltd for > violations of certain SEBI regulations & ---. Persuant to that court of > Special Judge for SEBI took cognizance of the complaint and --- pursuant to > the consent application & payment of Rs. 3 million to SEBI by the accused , > the court compounded the criminal case ( source page 385/ 494 of Prospecuts > pdf file) > > This vital info ( criminal complaint by SEBI itself) should have found a > prominent place in the prospectus but instead of that it is hidden ( buried) > inside towards the end. > > Further argued that SEBI should have insisted on putting this info on the > top page of the prospectus and also on all the advertisements. > > Since the person handling this issue from SEBI has not done it ( refer A & B > above) therby failing in his duty to make the prospective investors aware > about these facts, the general public has a right to know about the this > person. > > > > This info cannot be denied to the Parliament. > > This info asked under point 1 may please be supplied. > > Quoted section 10 (1) of the act & argued the CPIO should have given info > about qualifications & designation of the person dealing with the public > issue. > > > > On point 6 ( inspection) argued that I am very specific that I want to > inspect all the documents filed & taken into consideration by SEBI. This > inspection should also be covered under section 4 of the RTI act. SEBi has > taken the decision to allow the public issue & investors, prospective > investors , general public, citizens have full right to inspect all these > documents. > > > > I was not given an opportunity of hearing ( breach of section 19(5)) but > recd the decision of the AA Shri Madhu Sudan Sahoo Whole Time Member of > SEBI, forwarded by Sh. Mohamed Rahaz Assistant Legal Advisor, SEBI. > > > > It is a 4 page order – I am summarizing it below > > On Point 1:---There is an increasing tendency on the part of applicants > under the RTI act to insist on the identity and other personal details of > SEBI officials being disclosed to them. > > The final decision on any matter is of SEBI & is not attributable to any > individual employee or officer. > > Naming of an individual officer can at times lead to faming or shaming of > individual officer. > > Cited CIC/ AT/ A/ 2007/00356 dated Aug 22, 2007 > > Also cited CIC/ AT/ A/2007/00841 > > Also cited Karnatak HC judgment in case of H.E Rajashekharappa Vs SPIO & > others. > > Argues that personal details of the officers including educational > qualification have no nexus with public interest. These details are relevant > only to selection process & once recruited, they are part of a larger > system. Cited CIC/AT/ A/ 2006/ 00072 & cic/ AD/ A/ 09/ 000657) > > > > On Point 2:-- Has given info that No officer working in the divisions > dealing with public issues has subscribed for shares in the Adani power > issue. > > > > On Point 6:-- Ruled that SEBI , rather than appellant , knows what documents > it took into account & directed SEBI to provide inspection within 15 days of > the order to the applicant. > > > > > > My comments— > > > > Do we have right to know under RTI if the public servant entrusted with a > job are qualified to do the that job ( for e.g. Pilots , Nuclear Plant > Operations staff – refer radiated water contaminating drinking water at > Kaiga plant, Fire fighting staff at Jaipur oil depot which was destroyed due > to fire) > > > > Any suggestions for the inspection at SEBI , scheduled on Dec 3, 2009? > > > Thanks & Rgds > > Ajay Marathe > > Vashi, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra > ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rti_india/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
