Central Information Commission
Binod Kumar vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 27 December, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: - CIC/SEBIH/A/2021/152776
In the matter of
Binod Kumar ... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Security and Exchange Board of India
SEBI Bhawan, Plot Number C 4A
G Block, Bandra, Kurla Complex
Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 01/09/2021 CPIO replied on : 20/09/2021 First appeal filed on : 06/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 09/11/2021 Second Appeal dated : 03/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 26/12/2022 Date of Decision : 26/12/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Present over VC
Respondent: Santosh Kumar Sharma, CGM and CPIO, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information regarding letter No. JRMLC/PACL/AKD/BM/3470/......-/2021 dated June 25, 2021, issued to the appellant by Justice (Retd.) R M Lodha Committee:
(i) According to the statement "The last date for filing online claim application (with claims upto Rs.10.000/-)" in the above said letter, provide a copy of the document indicating whether the application of Binod Kumar is valid or invalid.
(ii) Provide a copy of the action taken report in respect of the application dated 31-05-2021 sent by Mr. Binod Kumar.1
(iii) Provide a copy of the document showing the time limit for the refund against the claim application.
(iv) And other related information.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide complete and clear information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that information was sought from SEBI and therefore, action taken report in respect of the application dated 31.05.2021 should be provided to him.
The CPIO submitted that a suitable reply was provided vide letter dated 20.09.2021.
Observations:
At the outset, an extract from the R M Lodha Committeee report is being enumerated as follows:
".................On an interim Application (I.A.No.7) being preferred by SEBI, by an order dated 02.05.2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to direct that no Civil Court or other Authority or Forum shall entertain any suit or other proceeding in respect of any claim or related matter(s) pertaining to PACL Ltd. and/or its Directors /Promoters / Group Companies /entities /individuals etc. However, various Petitions continue to be filed in various Courts and the Committee has been taking appropriate measures in this regard."
".............The Committee constantly updates information /notifications etc. with respect to matters related/ connected to PACL Ltd. by a dedicated corner in the SEBI website. Public notices are put up and press releases issued at frequent intervals /whenever necessary."
Keeping in view the above report, the present case is being decided strictly as per the RTI Act.
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 20.09.2021 replied to the appellant and stated in respect of points no. 1 to 5 that the information sought is not available with SEBI. However, he was advised to contact Justice (Retd.) R.M Lodha Commitee in this regard. He was also informed that he can refer to the public notice dated 31st July, 2020 in this regard for the status of the refund. He was also informed that vide public 2 notice dated 15th October 2020, the Committee has provided the investor a facility to view the status of/ deficiency in their claim applications and make good those deficiencies for investors/applicants with claims upto Rs 7000/-. The weblink was also provided to access the public notices. The appellant was not satisfied with the reply and filed a first appeal on 06.10.2021. The FAA vide order dated 09.11.2021 disposed of the first appeal and held that he finds no reason to disbelieve the observations of the CPIO in respect of points no. 1 to 3. He further held that it is understood that the responsibility of disposal of properties and repayment to investors, is entrusted with the PACL Committee (under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr Justice R.M Lodha, former Chief Justice of India), which had been constituted, pursuant to the order dated February 2, 2016 of the Supreme Court of India. He also noted that the refund process is being handled by the said Committee. Further, he noted that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to access the contact details of the Committee. Upon consideration of the same, he found no deficiency in the respondent's response. Further, there is a dedicated website for PACL refund-https://sebicommitteepaclrefund.com. He further took note of points no. 4 and 5 of the RTI application and held that information sought pertains to orders passed in C.A no. 13301/2015 and I.A. No. 5/2016 in C.A No. 13301/2015, wherein SEBI was also a party to the said proceedings. Therefore, in his view, the respondent was obliged to ascertain availability of the requested information with SEBI and whether the same may be provided to the appellant in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. On consideration, he found that points (iv) and (v) needs reconsideration and accordingly directed the CPIO to send an appropriate response. The CPIO accordingly provided the copy of the documents available with them. The appellant contested points no. 1 to 3 in his second appeal, therefore, the CPIO's written submissions dated 20.12.2022 in respect of those points were considered, wherein, he again reiterated that the information sought regarding the PACL claims is not available with SEBI as the responsibility of disposal of the properties and repayment to investors, is entrusted with the PACL Committee (under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Mr Justice R.M Lodha, former Chief Justice of India). He however submitted that the contact details of the said Committee and the specific weblinks related to PACL-status report, FAQs, Press Releases and Public notices etc. was provided.
3Decision:
The Commission observed that the FAA had passed a speaking order in respect of points no. 1 to 3 and the appellant failed to establish his second appeal. The detailed order of the FAA supports the conclusion of the CPIO and so, the appellant's second appeal is not at all justified in contending that wrong information was provided to him. Therefore, no action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु!त)
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011- 26182594 /
दनांक / Date
4