Central Information Commission
Girish Mittal vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 19 June, 2024
के ीय सूचना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग ,मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई द ली, New Delhi - 110067
ि तीय अपील सं या / Second Appeal No. CIC/SEBIH/A/2023/610680
Girish Mittal ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: SEBI, Mumbai
... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 27.12.2022 FA : 07.02.2023 SA : 25.02.2023
CPIO : 11.01.2023 FAO : 22.02.2023 Hearing : 13.06.2024
Date of Decision: 14.06.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 27.12.2022 seeking information on the following points:
a. Is the attached ICICI Prudential CORPORATE CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES FUND AIF-I registered/approved as AIF with SEBI under Securities and Exchange Board of India (Alternative Investment Funds) Regulations, 2012 or any other rules/Acts of SEBI?
b. If it is registered/approved, kindly provide the link where this scheme is given approval, or correspondences exchanged with the company where this scheme is given approval or deemed approval.Page 1 of 5
c. If it is not approved/registered, kindly provide information on the action taken or proposed to be taken under extant rules of SEBI.
d. Kindly provide details of the actions taken by SEBI in the last 5 years on investment schemes which are not approved by SEBI. Providing a link where such actions are taken are listed will be enough.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 11.01.2023 and the same is reproduced as under:-
"Point a - ICICI Prudential CORPORATE CREDIT OPPORTUNITIES FUND AIF- I is an approved scheme of ICICI Prudential Debt Fund, a category II AIF bearing registration No IN/AIF2/14- 15-0105.
Point b - The list of all registered AIF's is available on SEBI website under the following link, https://www.sebi gov.in/sebiweb/other/OtherAction do?doRecognisedFpi=yes&int mld=16 However, no link is available for any scheme approval. The above scheme was granted approval by SEBI on 01.10.2021. As regards, your request for copy of correspondences exchanged with the company, please note the information sought is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and includes commercial confidential information, the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. Hence, the information sought is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) & 8(1) (e) of RTI Act, 2005.
Point c - Not applicable Point d - Details of all action taken by SEBI can be accessed on SEBI website under the following path https://www.sebi.gov.in/enforcement/orders.html."
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 07.02.2023 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 22.02.2023 upheld the reply of CPIO.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 25.02.2023.
Page 2 of 55. The appellant attended the hearing through audio conference and on behalf of the respondent Shri Santosh Kumar Sharma, CPIO attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The appellant inter alia submitted that the regulatory approvals were required to be placed in public domain and the disclosure of the information was not exempted under provisions of the RTI Act, as per judicial pronouncement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reserve Bank of India vs Jayantilal N. Mistry [AIR 2016 SC 1] dated 16.12.2015.
7. The respondent while defending their case inter alia substantiated their arguments based on the following observations made by the FAA in its order dated 22.02.2023:
"FAA found that SEBI, being the regulatory authority for the securities market, gets various references/documents from market participants and the information contained therein are received in 'fiduciary relationship FAA also stated that such reference/ documents received by SEBI or correspondences made by SEBI with other entities may contain commercial information which is confidential in nature, disclosure of which may adversely impact the competitive position of the concerned entities. FAA, therefore, stated that such information pertaining to commercial confidence and which contains information received in 'fiduciary relationship' from market participants etc. is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Hence, FAA did not find any deficiency in the response Further, FAA noted that the appellant, in his appeal, has referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry. FAA noted that the facts and circumstances of the said order were totally different. In this regard, reliance is placed on the matter of Arun Damodar Sawant vs. SEBI (Order dated September 26, 2018) wherein, the Hon'ble CIC had accepted the submission of SEBI regarding existence of fiduciary relationship even after considering the appellant's submissions wherein he had relied upon the aforementioned judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry. Further, Page 3 of 5 FAA noted that the appellant has not established how the information involves the element of larger public interest."
The respondent further stated that the list of all registered AIFs is available on the SEBI website. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the same. However, the respondent informed that no link was available for any scheme approval. The respondent also informed that the said scheme was granted approval by SEBI on October 01, 2021. Regarding the request for copy of correspondences exchanged with the company, the respondent informed that the same was exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act since the same is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and includes commercially confidential information, the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. The CPIO insisted upon the fact that the details thereof also contained contents of Private Placement Memorandums (PPMs) and market strategies to raise funds disclosure of which could harm the trade secrets of the third parties concerned.
8. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both parties and perusal of records, observes that prima facie the four points raised in the RTI application contain queries in the form of questionnaire that could not have been addressed in material form, as per the definition of "information" under Section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the Appellant's attention is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the scope and ambit of Section 2(f) of RTI Act in the matter of CBSE vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. [CIVIL APPEAL NO.6454 of 2011] wherein it was held as under:
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing.........A public authority is also not required to furnish information which require drawing of inferences and/or making of assumptions. It is also not required to provide `advice' or `opinion' to an applicant, nor required to obtain and furnish any `opinion' or `advice' to an applicant. The reference to `opinion' or `advice' in the definition of `information' in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a Page 4 of 5 public relation exercise, provide advice, guidance and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation under the RTI Act."
Further, the appellant had sought the action taken by SEBI in the last 5 years on investment schemes which are not approved by SEBI, in point no. (iv) of the RTI application and the respondent has cited the web link containing the requisite information thereof. Therefore, the information already available in the public domain cannot be said to be under the custody of the respondent. Moreover, the respondent have given elaborate and comprehensive explanations in aid to their claim of exemption under clauses of Section 8 (1) (d) and (e) of the RTI Act. Therefore, there appears to be no larger public interest warranting further direction in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
Copy of the decision be provided free of cost to the parties.
Sd/-
आनंदी राम लंगम)
(Anandi Ramalingam) (आनं म
सूचना आयु )
Information Commissioner (सू
दनांक/Date: 14.06.2024
Authenticated true copy
Col S S Chhikara (Retd) (कन ल एस एस िछकारा, ( रटायड ))
Dy. Registrar (उप पंजीयक)
011-26180514
Addresses of the parties:
1. The CPIO
Securities And Exchange Board of India,
Nodal CPIO, RTI Cell, Sebi Bhawan,
Plot No.C4-A, "G" Block,
Bandra-Kurla Complex,
Bandra-East, Mumbai- 400051
2. Girish Mittal
Page 5 of 5
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)