Information regarding action taken by SEBI against Dunken Industries Ltd for allegedly making forged balance sheet for FY 2005-06 was sought - CIC: SEBI is not concerned with the subject & appellant may approach the appropriate public authority
1. The appellant, Shri Satyadeo Ram, submitted RTI application dated 10 June 2013 before the Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI), Mumbai; seeking information regarding action taken by the SEBI against Dunken Industries Ltd. (DIL) “for making forged balance sheet for the FY 200506 etc”. mentioned in his complaint filed on SCORES i.e. SEBI Complaints Redress System, through a total of 3 points.
2. Vide reply dated 9 July 2013, the CPIO informed the appellant that since the complaint was lodged on SCORES, he may view the status of the said complaint on SCORES. He also informed that the said complaint had been disposed of as not relating to Refund/ Allotment/ Dividend/ Transfer/ Bonus/ Rights/ Redemption/ Interest, with remarks that if desired, BIFR/MCA may be approached. Not satisfied with the CPIO’s reply, the appellant preferred an appeal dated 19 July 2013 to the first appellate authority (FAA) alleging that he had not been provided the information sought for by the CPIO concerned. Vide order dated 26 August 2013, the FAA upheld CPIO’s decision as he observed that the appellant had neither brought out any specific deficiency in the CPIO response nor raised any specific ground(s) of appeal for is consideration.
3. Dissatisfied with the response of the public authority, the appellant preferred appeal before the Commission.
4. The matter was heard by the Commission. The appellant submitted that he had sought information regarding action taken by the SEBI against Dunken Industries Ltd. (DIL) “for making forged balance sheet for the FY 2005-06 etc.” mentioned in his complaint filed on SCORES i.e. SEBI Complaints Redress System through a total of 3 points but the respondent CPIO had not provided any information. He submitted that the said DIL was a listed company which had been wrongly declared as sick industry causing loss to the exchequer. The appellant again added that it was BIFR which declared the DIL as sick industry on the basis of statement provided by the auditor of the loss in tune of Rs. 446 Crore and the amount of Rs. 446 Crore was fraudulent.
5. The respondent submitted that the said company i.e. DIL was not required to submit its balance sheet with SEBI. They had advised the appellant to approach the BIFR or Ministry of Corporate Affair as they were not the correct authority. On the point of action taken against the DIL in the matter of violation of Hon’ble Supreme Court’s order, he submitted that their connection with DIL was limited to the listing of the Company or allowing them to list them on Stock Exchange and regulate their trading.
6. The Commission accepts the submission of the respondents and observes that SEBI is not concerned with the subject at hand. The appellant may like to approach the appropriate public authority for seeking this information. The appeal is disposed of.
Citation: Shri Satyadeo Ram v. Security and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) in Appeal No. CIC/MP/A/2014/000215