File No.CIC/SM/A/2011/002068 Right to Information Act2005Under Section (19) Date of hearing Date of decision
9 July 2012
9 July 2012 Name of the Appellant : Shri Debashish Nath, 6, 4th Floor, Deval Chambers, Nanabhai Lane, Fort, Mumbai 400 001. Name of the Public Authority : CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhavan, Plot No. C4A, G Block, Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051. The Appellant was not present in spite of notice. On behalf of the Respondent, the following were present:
(i) Shri Jitendra Kumar, AGM,
(ii) Smt. Vandana R. Kumar, AGM Chief Information Commissioner : Shri Satyananda Mishra The Appellant did not turn up for the hearing in the Mumbai studio of the NIC in spite of notice. The Respondents were present in our chamber and made their submissions.
2. The Appellant had wanted to know about the number of notices which the SEBI had issued during a particular period against the RIL (Reliance Mukesh Dhirubhai Ambani Group of Companies) for insider trading of share transfer. Although the Appellant had enclosed a reply received from the CPIO in this matter, the respondents pointed out that this reply was not relevant to the CIC/SM/A/2011/002068 present RTI application and that the relevant reply, sent on the same date read as follows:
Since quasijudicial proceedings are in progress in this regard, the details sought by you are not provided in terms of
section 8(1) (h) of the Right to Information (RTI) Act, 2005. The Appellate Authority had endorsed this response.
3. During the hearing, the respondents submitted that the Appellant had sent two RTI applications on the same day, seeking similar information in respect of two different groups of companies namely, RIL and RNRL group of companies. They further clarified that in one of these cases, the CPIO had informed that the desired information was not available while in the other case, the above reply had been sent.
4. After carefully considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that the above response of the CPIO was not entirely in order. Even if it is admitted that certain quasijudicial proceedings were in progress against the relevant group of companies for insider trading in share transfer, at least, the total number of notices issued could have been mentioned. Also, if the notices issued included any information regarding the nature of the violation, such as, the volume of insider trading of shares, even that information could have been provided. The argument offered by the CPIO that the disclosure of the desired information would impede the process of the quasijudicial proceedings is neither supported by any evidence nor is tenable.
5. Therefore, we direct the CPIO to provide to the Appellant within 10 working days of receiving this order the number of notices the SEBI might have issued to these companies during the relevant period for insider trading in share CIC/SM/A/2011/002068 transfer. Besides, if the other details sought by him are included in the notices sent or separately maintained in a central register/database, that information should also be provided.
6. The appeal is disposed off accordingly.
7. Copies of this order be given free of cost to the parties. (Satyananda Mishra) Chief Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy. Additional copies of orders shall be supplied against application and payment of the charges prescribed under the Act to the CPIO of this Commission. (Vijay Bhalla) Deputy Registrar CIC/SM/A/2011/002068