Central Information Commission
Mrigesh Kumar Manubhai Thakkar vs Securities And Exchange Board Of India ... on 6 January, 2017
Central Information Commission
Room No.307, II Floor, B Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110066
website-cic.gov.in
Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001020
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000299
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000027
Appellant : Shri Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar, Patan
Public Authority : Securities & Exchange Board of India, Mumbai
Date of Hearing : December 22, 2016
Date of Decision : December 28, 2016
Present:
Appellant : Present - through VC
Respondent : Ms Sarika Kataria, AGM and Shri Naveen Kumar, Asstt
Manager - through VC
ORDER
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/001020 RTI application : 18.08.2015 CPIO's reply : 09.10.2015 First appeal : 12.10.2015 FAA's order : 19.11.2015 Second appeal : 28.03.2016
1. Shri Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar, the appellant, while mentioning that he had made several complaints related to illegal cartel on CNBC TV 18 channel sought information with reference to three companies, namely, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Lupin Ltd and Wockhardt Ltd, as some people were defrauding retail investors.
2. The CPIO informed the appellant that the information being sought was not available with SEBI but the appellant could see the website of National Stock Exchange and Bombay Stock Exchange on their respective website. Not satisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who also held that the information sought by the appellant was not available with the department concerned of SEBI and, therefore, SEBI could not be obliged to provide non-available information. He further added that the CPIO had provided the NSE and BSE website and also informed the appellant about SCORES, the grievance redressal system of SEBI. Dissatisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission seeking the information asked for in his RTI application.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that some people were trying to defraud the retrail investors. Therefore, he made a complaint to SEBI but as he did not receive any reply from SEBI, he took resort to seeking information through RTI. He wanted SEBI to take action against the three companies mentioned by him and also wanted to know their share in trading.
4. The respondents stated that SEBI did not maintain the data sought by the appellant. The details of FPI (Foreign Portfolio Investors) investment in cash market segment were published on six month lag basis. They had provided the website for the same. The appellant should file a complaint on SCORES and they shall take necessary steps to have the matter resolved. They added that the appellant had not sought the details of complaints and status earlier. Therefore, it could not be provided to the appellant as it was not a part of the RTI application.
5. The Commission observes that SEBI had provided the website details to the appellant and also the complaint redressal system. They could not provide information that was not a part of the record of the public authority and was also not required to be maintained under any law, rules and regulations of the public authority. The Commission holds that the FAA had responded appropriately in the matter. The appellant may like to follow the grievance redressal mechanism in case he has a complaint. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000027 RTI application : 16.07.2015 CPIO's reply : 12.08.2015 First appeal : 20.08.2015 FAA's order : 28.08.2015 Second appeal : 03.09.2015
1. Shri Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar, the appellant, sought information regarding RBI's ban on purchase of stock in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd by foreign institutional investors (FIIs). He wanted the date of such declaration, the date of its implementation and the limit of investment in the company for FIIs. He also sought information regarding the trade in NSE F90 derivatives from 1.1.2011 to 16.7.2015, etc.
2. The CPIO, SEBI transferred point 1 of the RTI application to RBI for a direct reply to the appellant and the RBI clearly intimated the appellant while enclosing a copy of the press release, that the foreign share holding in portfolio investment scheme in Maruti Suzuki had reached 22% and therefore, RBI's prior approval was required for purchase of further equity shares. RBI also informed that the FIIs' maximum limit was 24%. As regards points 2 and 3 of the RTI application, the CPIO informed the appellant that the information was not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities' market, hence the information sought could not be provided. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who upheld the CPIO's decision. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission mentioning illegal trading was going on.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated that certain companies were trying to defraud the retail investors. Therefore, he had sought information from SEBI regarding alleged irregularities in the stock market.
4. The respondents stated that point 1 of the RTI application did not concern them and they had forwarded it to the RBI who had duly responded in the matter. As regard information sought by the appellant in the other two points, SEBI did not maintain the information sought in the normal course of regulations of the stock market and as the information was not available with SEBI, the SEBI was not obliged to create it to satisfy the requirement of information given by the appellant.
5. The Commission observes that the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties. The Commission, therefore, does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.
No. CIC/MP/A/2016/000299 RTI application : 20.08.2015 CPIO's reply : 14.09.2015 First appeal : 21.09.2015 FAA's order : 26.10.2015 Second appeal : 11.12.2015
1. Shri Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar, the appellant, sought information regarding cash purchases in Maruti stock through NSE and BSE after the RBI's press release dated 3.3.2014 regarding ban on purchase by FIIs in Maruti stock, etc.
2. The CPIO informed the appellant that the information sought regarding FII brokerage house was not available with SEBI. Moreover, the information sought with regard to FPI transactions in cash market was available with SEBI in fiduciary capacity, the disclosure of which would harm the competitive position of the entities. The CPIO, however, added that trade wise details of FII/FPI in cash segment were disseminated on SEBI's website on six month lag basis. Dissatisfied, the appellant approached the first appellate authority who held that the appellant had narrated a grievance regarding alleged irregularities in the stock market and desired SEBI to obtain information from the RBI and also that there was no provision in the RTI Act according to which the information available on the website was not required to be given. The FAA, in a detailed order, upheld the decision of the CPIO. Not satisfied, the appellant came in appeal before the Commission stating that he was approaching the Commission as he was dissatisfied with the FAA's order. He reiterated his grievance regarding illegal trading/gambling in the stock market.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant reiterated his request for information alleging the rampant illegal trading in stock market.
4. The respondents stated that they had provided a point wise response to the appellant. They could not provide any information where none existed with them. As regards information with regard to FPI transactions in cash market it was available with SEBI in its fiduciary capacity and its disclosure could adversely impact the competitive position of the entities in question and, therefore, this information could not be provided u/s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The trade wise details of FIIs/FPIs in cash segment were disseminated on SEBI's website and were already in public domain.
5. On hearing both the parties, the Commission observes that the respondents had given the details of website relating to the stock exchanges. The contention that just because information is on the website and therefore, need not be provided, has been considered in various decisions of the CIC where it has been held that once the information is in the public domain, the public authority cannot be said to be the exclusive holder of such information. The Commission observes that CIC in its order no. CIC/AT/A/2010/000384 has held that "A matter already brought out into the public domain either through website or through a publication, comes within the obligation cast on the public authority u/s 4(1) of the RTI Act and it would be entirely in order for that public authority to direct a petitioner to the source from where information could be obtained."
6. As regards the requirement of information which is not held by the public authority, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CBSE vs Aditya Bandopadhyay has observed as follows:-
"35. At this juncture, it is necessary to clear some misconceptions about the RTI Act. The RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. This is clear from a combined reading of Section 3 and the definitions of 'information' and 'right to information' under Clauses (f) and (j) of Section 2 of the Act. If a public authority has any information in the form of data or analyzed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access such information, subject to the exemptions in Section 8 of the Act. But where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.
7. The Commission, therefore, upholds the decision of the FAA. The appeal is disposed of.
(Manjula Prasher) Information Commissioner Authenticated true copy:
Dy Registrar Copy to :
The Central Public Information Officer The First Appellate Authority Securities & Exchange Board of India Securities & Exchange Board of India SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4, G Block SEBI Bhawan, Plot No. C-4, G Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400051 Mumbai-400051 Shri Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar Manubhai Complex, ST Station Road Radhanpura, Distt Patan-385340