Appellant had complained to SEBI regarding a scam with respect to mid-cap stocks purchased through HDFC which were not replied to - SEBI: RTI application was of a very general nature - CIC: Provide the action taken on the complaints cited by the appellant
Date of Decision : February 23, 2016
1. The appellant, Shri Girish Saghavi, submitted RTI application dated 09.03.2015 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Securities and Exchange Board of India, Mumbai seeking information whether SEBI was competent authority to enquire into a scam that includes rigging and/or wrong advice deliberately given by HDFC authorities, information on progress of his complaint till the date of submitting his application, information on various mid-cap stocks purchased through HDFC Securities involved in scam along with name of the company & progress in investigation of various scams etc., through four points.
2. The CPIO vide letter dated 27.03.2015 informed that information sought was vague and not specific. Further stated that it was in the nature of seeking clarification, hence the same could not be construed as information u/s 2(f) “information” means any material in any form, including records, documents, memos, e-mails, opinions, advices, press releases, circulars, orders, logbooks, contracts, reports, papers, samples, models, data material held in any electronic form and information relating to any private body which can be accessed by a public authority under any other law for the time being in force; of RTI Act, 2005. Further informed that SEBI had launched a new web based centralized grievance redress system called SEBI Complaint Redressal System (SCORES) and in case of grievance, complaint could be lodged at http://scores.gov.in. Dissatisfied with the reply of the CPIO the appellant filed an appeal on 01.04.2015 before the first appellate authority (FAA), alleging that the CPIO, Dr Anil Kumar Sharma, grossly erred in not giving any information on point no. 1 to 4. The FAA, vide order dated 23.07.2014, concurred with decision of the CPIO. Thereafter, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Commission on 27.06.2015 for rejection of his RTI application on the ground that RTI application not fall under grievances readdressed cell.
3. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant stated that he had complained to SEBI regarding a scam with respect to mid-cap stocks purchased through HDFC. He had also made complaints dated 14.7.2014, 1.8.2014 and 3.11.2014 to the Chairman, SEBI which were not replied to. SEBI had only responded to him stating that his application was not clear while the chairman had made a reference to the police in the same matter. The respondent stated that the appellant’s RTI application was of a very general nature and he did not recall having received the complaints addressed to the Chairman at that stage. He assured that if the appellant sends copies of the complaints mentioned by him to the CPIO, they will recheck the position with regard to the action taken, if any, on these and intimate the action taken to the appellant.
4. Having heard both the parties, the Commission directs the CPIO to provide action taken/ outcome on the complaints cited by the appellant to him within 21 days of the receipt of the order of the Commission. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Girish Sanghavi v. Securities and Exchange Board of India in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2015/001497