Central Information Commission
Manish Goel vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 1 May, 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/2023/602633
Manish Goel ... अपीलकता /Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO: SEBI, Mumbai
... ितवादीगण/Respondents
Relevant dates emerging from the appeal:
RTI : 24.11.2022 FA : 12.12.2022 SA : 14.01.2023
CPIO : 07.12.2022 FAO : 11.01.2023 Hearing : 30.04.2024
Date of Decision: 30.04.2024
CORAM:
Hon'ble Commissioner
_ANANDI RAMALINGAM
ORDER
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 24.11.2022 seeking information regarding Paytm IPO on the following points:
(i) Name and employee code of all those SEBI employees who approved the Paytm IPO.
(ii) Copy of file notings which finally lead to Paytm IPO.
(iii) Copy of green sheet with signature of all those employees who approved Paytm IPO.Page 1 of 6
(iv) Name and employee code of all those SEBI employees, if any, on which SEBI CVO launched an investigation for corruption by colluding with Paytm management to approve its IPO.
(v) Name and employee code of all those SEBI employees, if any, on which CBI, CVC or any vigilance department of Honourable Finance Ministry launched an investigation for corruption by colluding with Paytm management to approve its IPO.
(vi) Detailed rationale prepared by SEBI to approve Paytm IPO including issue price of 2150.
(vii) Provide the name and employee code of all those SEBI employees, if any, who are found guilty of corruption by SEBI for approving Paytm IPO. ...etc.
2. The CPIO replied vide letter dated 07.12.2022 and the same is reproduced as under
:-
"Point (i), (ii), (iii) & (vi) - SEBI (Issue of Capital and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2018 ("SEBI ICDR Regulations") governs the relevant rules and regulations pertaining to Initial Public Offerings ("IPOs"). For ease of reference, link for accessing the said regulations is provided below:
https://www.sebi.gov.in/legal/regulations/jul-2022/securities-and-exchange- board-of-india- issue-of-capital-and-disclosure-requirements-regulations-2018- last-amended-on-july-25- 2022-61425.html"
A Company proposing to list on Indian Stock Exchanges through IPO is required to file a draft red herring prospectus ("DRHP") with SEBI, BSE and NSE. The DRHP and subsequent offer documents contain mandated disclosures as prescribed under SEBI ICDR Regulations and additional disclosures as deemed fit by Merchant Banker. Such disclosures in DRHP and subsequent offer documents are meant to enable investors in making an informed investment decision.
Page 2 of 6As per the extant regulation, SEBI does not "vet" or "approve" the offer document for an Initial Public Offer (IPO). Thus, the present legal and regulatory framework is primarily based on disclosures. Further, you may see the following disclaimer clause of SEBI available in page 421 of the DRHP and page 464 of RHP (Red Herring prospectus) "It is to be distinctly understood that submission of the draft red herring prospectus to SEBI should not, in any way, be deemed or construed that the same has been cleared or approved by SEBI. SEBI does not take any responsibility either for the financial soundness of any scheme or the project for which the offer is proposed to be made or for the correctness of the statements made or opinions expressed in the draft red herring prospectus..."
In view of the above, the reply to the aforesaid queries is Nil.
Point (iv), & (vii) - Information sought is personal information of employees, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and may cause unwarranted invasion into their privacy and may also endanger the life or physical safety of the person(s). The same is therefore, exempt in terms of Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005.
However, it is informed that Vigilance Department of SEBI which is headed by CVO had carried out examination in the matter of IPO of Paytm and pursuant to the said examination, no discernible vigilance angle was seen.
Point (v) - No such information is available with SEBI." ...etc.
3. Dissatisfied with the response received from the CPIO, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 12.12.2022 alleging that the information provided was incomplete, false and misleading. The FAA vide order dated 11.01.2023 directed the respondent to provide information on query number 8 to the appellant as provision of RTI Act, 2005.
4. Aggrieved with the FAA's order, the Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal dated 14.01.2023.
Page 3 of 65. The appellant remained absent during the hearing despite notice and on behalf of the respondent Mr. Santosh Kumar Sharma, CPIO, attended the hearing through video conference.
6. The respondent while defending their case inter alia submitted that a response to the RTI application in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005, had already been furnished to the appellant vide their letter dated 07.12.2022. He further submitted that to access the information sought on point no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 of the RTI application, a website link had been provided to the appellant. Further, the information sought on points no. 4, 7, 8 & 10 of the RTI application were related to third-party, disclosure of which had no relationship to any public activity or interest. Accordingly, they claimed exemption under section 8 (1) (g) & (j) of the RTI Act. Hence, no further information remained to be provided to the appellant, he said. A relevant para of the respondent written submission is reproduced as under-:
"The instant second appeal by appellant before Hon'ble CIC is w.r.t. query no. 10 only. In this regard, submissions of SEBI are given below:
It is once again reiterated that the said query was majorly in the form of seeking personal information of officers of SEBI, the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and may cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual. The same is, therefore, exempt in terms of Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act, 2005. Further, the disclosure of such information may also endanger the life or physical safety of the person(s), which is exempt under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005.
It is pertinent to mention that FAA had also vide their order dated 11/1/23 agreed with the response of SEBI and did not find any deficiency therein In view of the above, it is humbly requested that the appeal may be dismissed."
7. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing the respondent and perusal of records, observed that the CPIO has provided an appropriate reply to the RTI Application as per the provisions of the RTI Act vide letter dated Page 4 of 6 07.12.2022. During the hearing the respondent submitted that to access the information sought on point no. 1, 2, 3, 6 and 9 of the RTI application, a website link had been provided to the appellant. The Commission notes that the Appellant has sought on points no. 4, 7, 8 & 10 of the RTI application for the personal information of a third party, which stands exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this regard, the attention of the parties is drawn towards a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Public Information Officer, Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in the matter(s) of Canara Bank Vs. C.S. Shyam in Civil Appeal No.22 of 2009; Girish Ramchandra Deshpande vs. Central Information Commissioner & Ors., (2013) 1 SCC 212 and R.K. Jain vs. Union of India & amp; Anr., (2013) 14 SCC 794. The following was thus held:
"59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents, in our opinion, would indicate that personal records, including name, address, physical, mental and psychological status, marks obtained, grades and answer sheets, are all treated as personal information. Similarly, professional records, including qualification, performance, evaluation reports, ACRs, disciplinary proceedings, etc. are all personal information. Medical records, treatment, choice of medicine, list of hospitals and doctors visited, findings recorded, including that of the family members, information relating to assets, liabilities, income tax returns, details of investments, lending and borrowing, etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..."
8. Further, in the absence of the appellant to plead his case or contest the CPIO's submissions, the Commission finds no scope of intervention in the matter. With this observation, the appeal is dismissed.
Page 5 of 6Copy 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: 30.04.2024
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. Manish Goel
Page 6 of 6
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)