Central Information Commission
K C Aggarwal vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 13 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/2021/617124
In the matter of
K C Aggarwal
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
SEBI Bhawan II, Plot No. 7, G- Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East,
Mumbai - 400 051
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 04/03/2021 CPIO replied on : 16/03/2021 First appeal filed on : 18/03/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 15/04/2021 Second Appeal Filed on : 09/05/2021 Date of Hearing : 12/12/2022 Date of Decision : 12/12/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: K.C Aggarwal - present over intra VC Respondent: Santosh Kumar Sharma, CGM/CPIO and Ms. Pramila Shridhar, DGM- present over VC Information Sought:
The appellant's daughter-in-law, Mrs. Ankita Agarwal sold Future Contracts for 26000 shares of Indian Oil Corporation at a Price of Rs. 103.10/- on 4th and 5th February 2021 from his account with ICICI Securities Limited. On the pretext of corporate action adjustment, his value position at the rate of Rs. 103.10/- was reduced to Rs. 96.50/- leading to a loss of Rs. 1,95,000/-. In this regard he has sought the following information:
1. Whether his broker made the corresponding gain consequent to reduction of value position and loss sustained in his account?1
2. Whether some other broker made the corresponding gain consequent to reduction of value position and loss sustained in his account?
3. Whether any other person made the corresponding gain consequent to reduction of value position and loss sustained in his account?
4. If answer to question No. 3 is yes, then provide details along with the copy of relevant trade book.
Grounds for filing Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information.
Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant submitted that he was aggrieved on account of non-receipt of material information from the CPIO and FAA. He averred that the information sought was pertinent in the light of monetary loss suffered by him and to uncover the malpractices employed by the respondent on investors. He contended that the information sought by him was not in the nature of a query rather specific information qua trade activities of the respondent was sought. He acknowledged that he may have received the copy of the written submissions of the respondent dated 15.11.2022 over email, however, sought an adjournment for checking the veracity of its contents as he was unable to do so before the hearing. He stated that due to his pressing travel schedule, he did not get adequate time to read the submissions of the respondent. The representative of the CPIO submitted that adequate information as per records had been provided to the appellant vide CPIO's letter dated 16.03.2021. She reiterated the contents of the written submissions dated 09.11.2022 which was also sent to the appellant through email. Attention of the Commission was brought towards Paragraph 6 of the aforementioned submissions wherein the respondent authority has adjudicated the complaints of the appellant and sent him the status report. She added that the updated status on the complaints can be checked by the investors using the SEBI Complaints Redressal System (SCORES).
Observations:
The Commission at the outset rejected the request of the appellant for adjournment of the hearing in the absence of any reasonable cause for not having seen the written submissions of the CPIO despite adequate time to do so and therefore, proceeded with hearing the case on merits. On a perusal of the case records and submissions of both the parties during the hearing, the Commission observed that the information sought in the instant case qua financial transactions between the appellant's daughter-in-law and Stock Broker falls under the ambit of personal information. Such information is expressly barred from disclosure as per Section-8(1)(j) of the RTI Act unless the 2 appellant exhibits involvement of public interest. The appellant failed to establish his locus as well as involvement of public interest in the instant matter.
The Commission further noted that the CPIO has provided a copy of the fresh action taken history of the complaints of the appellant filed before SEBI Complaints Redressal System (SCORES) vide written submissions dated 09.11.2022. It is a settled law that only that information which is held by the public authority or under the control of public authority can be provided. The Commission concluded that adequate information stands disseminated as per the provisions of the RTI Act. No infirmity is found in the response of the CPIO.
Decision:
In the light of the above observations and factual matrix, the Commission is not inclined to provide any relief to the appellant as the sought for information has been provided as per the provisions of the RTI Act, 2005.
The appeal, therefore, stands 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
3