Central Information Commission
Ramesh Kumar Gupta vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 30 November, 2018
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/SEBIN/A/2017/157720-BJ
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta
....अपीलकता
/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO,
Securities and Exchange Board of India,
SEBI Bhawan, Plot no. C4-A, "G" Block
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra (East) Mumbai-400051
... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 29.11.2018
Date of Decision : 30.11.2018
Date of RTI application 13.04.2017
CPIO's response 21.04.2017
Date of the First Appeal 27.05.2017
First Appellate Authority's response 09.06.2017
Date of diarized receipt of Appeal by the Commission 22.08.2017
ORDER
FACTS:
The Appellant vide his RTI application sought information on 05 points regarding the details of the Companies along with the names of their directors, permanent addresses, mobile no. etc. that were involved in chit fund scams against which SEBI had initiated actions, action taken by the Respondent Public Authority against M/s. PACL Limited Company with respect to return of funds invested by the investors, details of investors with their amounts invested in the above said Company and other issues related thereto.
The CPIO, vide its letter dated 21.04.2017 stated for points 01 to 05 that the orders passed by the SEBI in the matter of M/s PACL Ltd. was available on their website under the heading "Orders & Rulings - Orders-Orders of Chairman/Members". It was further informed that on February Page 1 of 5 02, 2016, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had constituted a Special Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice R. M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India, for disposing off the land purchased by the Company (M/s. PACL) and that the sale proceeds could be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Dissatisfied by the response, the Appellant approached the FAA. The FAA, vide its order dated 09.06.2017, upheld the CPIOs response.
HEARING:
Facts emerging during the hearing:
The following were present:
Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Kumar Gupta through VC;
Respondent: Mr. G. P. Garg, CPIO and Mr. N. U. Raju, AGM through AC;
The Appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application and stated that the desired information was not provided to him. Explaining that the matter pertained to the larger public interest of the Farmers/ Labourers/ Small Investors and other common citizens, allegedly duped by a Company (M/s PACL), the Appellant submitted that all the information relating to the decisions of the Special Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice R.M. Lodha, Former Chief Justice Of India should be proactively disclosed and made easily accessible to the common citizens who did not have access to internet or other electronic modes of accessing information. In its reply, the Respondent re-iterated the response of the CPIO/ FAA and stated that the orders passed by SEBI as well as the deliberations of the Special Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Justice R. M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India were already available on their website which could be accessed through the links mentioned in the reply to the RTI application. During the hearing it was also informed that a refund was provided to approximately 1,00,000 investors out of the sale proceeds of the land purchased by the Company and that claims of remaining investors were under scrutiny. On being queried if the details of refunds granted were published and made easily accessible to citizens at Mirzapur by way of publication of hard copy of relevant documents, no satisfactory response was offered by the Respondent.
The Commission was in receipt of a written submission from the Respondent dated 26.11.2018 wherein while reiterating the contents of the RTI application, reply/order of the CPIO/FAA, it was submitted that on February 02, 2016 the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had appointed a Special Committee under the Chairmanship of Justice Shri R.M. Lodha, former Chief Justice of India for disposing off the land purchased by the Company (M/s. PACL) so that the sale proceeds could be paid to the investors, who have invested their funds in the Company for purchase of the land. Consequently, the committee had initiated, at the first instance, the process of refund with respect to investors of M/s. PACL having claims of not more than Rs. 2500/-. The same had been communicated to the public at large by way of a press release dated January 02, 2018. Moreover, the committee in consonance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court order had received proposals for the sale of properties in their entirety from various entities. All the proposals received have been uploaded on the SEBI website and any final decision on the same would be notified on their website. The Respondent was however, advised to endorse a copy of Page 2 of 5 their written submission sent to the Commission to the Appellant, as well in Hindi Language for easy comprehension.
Having heard both the parties and on perusal of the available records, the Commission at the outset observed that very important and pertinent issues concerning the interest of the citizens at large were raised in the RTI application which required special attention and efforts on the part of the public authority by dissemination of information through multiple media platforms including the publication of the decisions of the Committee at the District Level for ease and convenience of the common citizens. Even though, technically speaking, the RTI Application had been responded by the CPIO/ FAA, the issue of wider dissemination of information was highlighted by the Appellant during the hearing.
The Commission observed that a voluntary disclosure of all information that ought to be displayed in the public domain should be the rule and members of public who having to seek information should be an exception. An open government, which is the cherished objective of the RTI Act, can be realised only if all public offices comply with proactive disclosure norms. Section 4(2) of the RTI Act mandates every public authority to provide as much information suo- motu to the public at regular intervals through various means of communications, including the Internet, so that the public need not resort to the use of RTI Act.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of CBSE and Anr. Vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay and Ors 2011 (8) SCC 497 held as under:
"37. The right to information is a cherished right. Information and right to information are intended to be formidable tools in the hands of responsible citizens to fight corruption and to bring in transparency and accountability. The provisions of RTI Act should be enforced strictly and all efforts should be made to bring to light the necessary information under Clause (b) of Section 4(1) of the Act which relates to securing transparency and accountability in the working of public authorities and in discouraging corruption."
The Commission also observes the Hon'ble Delhi High Court ruling in WP (C) 12714/2009 Delhi Development Authority v. Central Information Commission and Another (delivered on:
21.05.2010), wherein it was held as under:
"16.It also provides that the information should be easily accessible and to the extent possible should be in electronic format with the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be. The word disseminate has also been defined in the explanation to mean - making the information known or communicating the information to the public through notice boards, newspapers, public announcements, media broadcasts, the internet, etc. It is, therefore, clear from a plain reading of Section 4 of the RTI Act that the information, which a public authority is obliged to publish under the said section should be made available to the public and specifically through the internet. There is no denying that the petitioner is duty bound by virtue of the provisions of Section 4 of the RTI Act to publish the information indicated in Section 4(1)(b) and 4(1)(c) on its website so that the public have minimum resort to the use of the RTI Act to obtain the information."Page 3 of 5
Furthermore, High Court of Delhi in the decision of General Manager Finance Air India Ltd & Anr v. Virender Singh, LPA No. 205/2012, Decided On: 16.07.2012 had held as under:
"8. The RTI Act, as per its preamble was enacted to enable the citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority. An informed citizenry and transparency of information have been spelled out as vital to democracy and to contain corruption and to hold Governments and their instrumentalities accountable to the governed. The said legislation is undoubtedly one of the most significant enactments of independent India and a landmark in governance. The spirit of the legislation is further evident from various provisions thereof which require public authorities to:
A. Publish inter alia:
i) the procedure followed in the decision making process;
ii) the norms for the discharge of its functions;
iii) rules, regulations, instructions manuals and records used by its employees in discharging of its functions;
iv) the manner and execution of subsidy programmes including the amounts allocated and the details of beneficiaries of such programmes;
v) the particulars of recipients of concessions, permits or authorizations granted. [see Section 4(1) (b), (iii), (iv), (v); (xii) & (xiii)].
B. Suo moto provide to the public at regular intervals as much information as possible [see Section 4(2)]."
Above all the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the decision of R.B.I. and Ors. V. Jayantilal N. Mistry and Ors, Transferred Case (Civil) No. 91 of 2015 (Arising out of Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 707 of 2012 decided on 16.12.2015 had held as under:
"The ideal of 'Government by the people' makes it necessary that people have access to information on matters of public concern. The free flow of information about affairs of Government paves way for debate in public policy and fosters accountability in Government. It creates a condition for 'open governance' which is a foundation of democracy."
DECISION:
Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties and taking into consideration the substantial public interest involved in the matter, the Commission instructs Page 4 of 5 the Respondent to suo motu disclose all information relating to the deliberations of the Special Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Justice R.M. Lodha in hard copy and publish the same on the notice board at the O/o of the District Magistrate within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order in Hindi Language. The Respondent is also directed to periodically publish all information relating to the deliberations held at the Committee Meeting for the benefit of the investors involved therein.
The Appeal stands disposed accordingly.
Bimal Julka (िबमल जु का)
Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु )
Authenticated true copy
(अ भ मा णत स या पत त)
K.L. Das (के .एल.दास)
Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक)
011-26182598/ [email protected]
दनांक / Date: 30.11.2018
Copy to:
1- The Chairman, Securities and Exchange Board of India, SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4A, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400 051, Maharashtra.
2- The District Magistrate, Mirzapur, O/o the District Magistrate, Collectorate Compound Mirzapur UP 231001 Page 5 of 5