Central Information Commission
Manish Goel vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 15 November, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सुचना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मुिनरका, नई द ली - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File No.:- CIC/SEBIH/A/2021/640052
In the matter of:
Manish Goel
... Appellant
VS
Central Public Information Officer
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C4-A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051
...Respondent
RTI application filed on : 11/07/2021 CPIO replied on : 04/08/2021 First appeal filed on : 04/08/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 30/08/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 31/08/2021 Date of Hearing : 15/11/2022 Date of Decision : 15/11/2022 The following were present: Appellant: Not present
Respondent: Santosh Kumar Sharma, CGM and CPIO, present over VC alongwith Pramila Sridhar, DGM Information Sought:
The appellant in his second appeal has stated that he is not satisfied with information provided to him in respect of points No. 2,3,4,6 & 7 of the RTI application, which are stated below:
2. How many complaints at SCORES Portal of SEBI were filed against each Investment Advisor and Research Analyst since the time they got SEBI registration?1
3. How many of the said complaints have been pending as on July 10, 2021?. Out of the same, how many complaints have been pending for more than 6 months?
4. Provide details of action taken on the complaints, which have been pending for more than 6 months.
6. Out of all the registered Investment advisors and research analysts as on July 10, 2021, for how many cases, SEBI has conducted an Examination of Affairs. Provide name of each Investment Advisor and Research Analyst in respect of which an Examination of Affairs was conducted.
7. Out of all registered Investment advisors and research analyst as on July 10, 2021, for how many cases, SEBI conducted an Inspection. Provide name of each Investment Advisor and Research Analyst for which Inspection was conducted.
Grounds for Second Appeal:
The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 04.11.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED236998500IN.
The CPIO vide written submissions dated 09.11.2022 submitted in respect of points no. 2,3 and 4 that the appellant had requested various information regarding complaints filed against each Investment Advisers and Research Analysts since the time they got registration. As the number of registered Investment Advisers and Research Analysts are huge and the complaints against them may run into thousands, the data sought is voluminous. For providing the information to the appellant, the same have to be collected and collated from a large amount of data/information from different local and regional offices of SEBI. Further, the data has to be analysed and categorised for providing the information as sought by the appellant in his application. Given the volume and the complexity of the information requested for by the appellant, collating the information would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority in terms of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further, the appellant was informed that SEBI conducts examination/inspections confidentially, if any regulatory action is taken by SEBI on the basis of such examinations/inspections, the same would be available in public domain and 2 can be accessed from the SEBI website www.sebi.gov.in under the head:
Enforcement.
In respect of points no. 6 and 7, the CPIO replied that the query was adequately addressed as the appellant was informed that the details of number of inspections carried out with respect to Investment Advisers (IAs) and Research Analysts (RAs) are available in the Annual Report of SEBI which is available on the SEBI website.
The CPIO summed up stating that as far as the information regarding names of IAs and RAs whose examination of affairs or inspection were conducted by SEBI, the information sought is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) & (e) of the RTI Act as the same is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and includes commercial confidential information, the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. It is to be noted that whenever SEBI conducts inspection of any registered intermediary, upon its completion, the inspection authority submits an inspection report along with the related papers, to the competent authority. The said report contains the tentative findings about the conduct of the inspected entity. There is a subsequent process to determine the validity of such findings. Thereafter, whenever violations are established, if any, appropriate enforcement action is taken under the provisions of the SEBI Act 1992 and Regulations framed thereunder, which culminate in the issuance of orders. Till the issuance of such a final order, the names and other details of the entity (s) involved in a case is treated as tentative and confidential as the same, if disclosed, may cause irreparable damage to reputation of the entity(s) who are third party(s) and also affect their competitive position if the quasi- judicial authority disagrees with the findings in a particular matter.
Observations:
Based on a perusal of the record, it was noted that the CPIO vide letter dated 04.08.2021 replied to the appellant. However, the appellant was not satisfied on points no. 2,3,4,6 and 7 of the RTI application. In respect of points no. 2,3 and 4 the CPIO replied that collating the information sought by the appellant would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority in terms of Sec 7(9) of the RTI Act. Further, SEBI conducts examination/inspection confidentially. If any regulatory action is taken by SEBI on basis of such examination/inspections, the same would be available in public domain and 3 can be accessed from the SEBI website www.sebi.gov.in under the head Enforcement. In respect of points no. 6 and 7 the CPIO replied that the details of number of inspections carried out with respect to Inspection Advisers (IA) and Research Analysts (RA) are available in the Annual Report of SEBI which is available on SEBI website. Further, any regulatory action taken by SEBI is available in public domain and can be accessed from the SEBI website www.sebi.gov.in under the head Enforcement. The information regarding names of IAs and RAs whose examination of affairs or inspection were conducted by SEBI is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and includes commercial confidential information, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the entitites. Hence, the information sought is exempt u/s 8(1)(d) and (e) of the RTI Act.
The FAA also concurred with the CPIO's reply. The appellant in his second appeal had not specified the deficiency in the reply. Moreover, he was not present to explain whether he accessed the information on the website of SEBI and also the Annual report.
Decision:
In view of the above, there is no ground to admit this second appeal as the CPIO had suitably explained the status of the case and justified the reply. Hence, no action lies.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मा णत स या पत ित) A.K. Assija (ऐ.के. असीजा) Dy. Registrar (उप-पंजीयक) 011- 26182594 / दनांक / Date 4