Central Information Commission
D Sivagurunathan vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 29 November, 2022
Author: Vanaja N Sarna
Bench: Vanaja N Sarna
क य सच ु ना आयोग
CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
बाबा गंगनाथ माग
Baba Gangnath Marg
मु नरका, नई द ल - 110067
Munirka, New Delhi-110067
File no.: CIC/SEBIE/A/2021/155212
In the matter of
D Sivagurunathan
... Appellant
VS
CPIO
Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI),
SEBI Bhawan, Plot C4-A, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex,
Bandra East - 400051
... Respondent
RTI application filed on : 08/07/2021 CPIO replied on : 09/08/2021 First appeal filed on : 06/10/2021 First Appellate Authority order : 10/11/2021 Second Appeal filed on : 14/12/2021 Date of Hearing : 29/11/2022 Date of Decision : 29/11/2022 The following were present:
Appellant: Not present Respondent: Santosh Kumar Sharma, CGM and CPIO alongwith P.Sridhar, DGM, present over VC Information Sought:
The Appellant has sought the following information:
1. Number of Companies to which exemption has been granted in the last three financial years ended as on 31/03/2019, 31/03/2020 & 31/03/2021 from Regulation 23(3)(c) SEBI LODR Regulations, 2015, which states "OMNI Bus approval to related party transaction permitted for a period of one year only''.1
2. Number of companies on which SEBI has imposed fine in the last thee financial years for violation of Regulation 23(3)(c) of SEBI LODR Regulations, 2015 by passing OMNI Bus approval for related party transaction for a period exceeding one year.
Grounds for Second Appeal The CPIO did not provide the desired information. Submissions made by Appellant and Respondent during Hearing:
The appellant in his second appeal submitted that he is not satisfied with the reply of the CPIO as the desired information was not given to him. However, he was not present at the VC venue despite due service of notice on 22.11.2022 vide speed post acknowledgment no. ED236940102IN. The CPIO submitted that an appropriate reply was given to the appellant on 09.08.2021. He reiterated the written submissions dated 23.11.2022. On a query, he submitted that a copy of the written submissions was sent to the applicant on 24.11.2022.
Observations:
From a perusal of the relevant case records, it is noted that on point no. 1 a categorical reply was given to the appellant whereby he was informed that no such information is maintained in the normal course of regulations of Securities market. The Commission does not find any flaw in the reply as what is not available in the records, cannot be provided. On point no. 2, the appellant was directed to a hyper-link, however, the appellant is aggrieved as according to him no such information is available on the website referred to by the CPIO. The appellant was however not present to substantiate his case.
Decision:
In view of the above observations, the Commission is not inclined to provide any relief.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Vanaja N. Sarna (वनजा एन. सरना)
Information Commissioner (सच
ू ना आयु त)
2
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