BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2280 of 2015
Pradeep Kumar

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated August 17, 2015, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter
dated September 21, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal
dated October 26, 2015 (received at SEBI Patna Local Office on October 29, 2015),
against the said response. I have carefully considered the application, the response and the
appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.

2.

From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to his
application regarding Prayag Infotech HiRise Limited.

3.

In this appeal, the appellant while placing reliance on the decision of the Honble CIC in
CIC/AT/A/2006/00355 dated December 26, 2006, has reiterated the abovementioned
request for information as contained in his application.

4.

Query at point no. 1 of the appellants application In his response, I note that the
respondent inter alia informed the appellant that SEBI had passed Orders dated September
30, 2013 and February 18, 2014, in the matter of Prayag Infotech HiRise Limited and the
aforesaid Orders were available on the SEBI website i.e. www.sebi.gov.in under the
heading: Orders & RulingsOrdersOrders of Chairman/Members. Upon a
consideration of the aforesaid, I find that the requisite information in respect of the
appellant's request for information had been provided by the respondent. I, therefore, find
no deficiency with the respondent's response to the instant query of the appellant's
application.

Page 1 of 3

5.1

Query at point no. 2 of the appellants application In his response, the respondent
informed the appellant that proceedings were in progress in the matter and the same had
not reached a logical conclusion. In view of the same, the respondent informed the
appellant that disclosure of details related to the matter may impede the process and was
therefore, exempted from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

5.2

I note that in his response, the respondent while invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(h)
of the RTI Act, informed the appellant that proceedings were in progress in the matter and
the same had not yet reached a logical conclusion. Upon a consideration of the
aforementioned, I find that disclosure of information would be premature to the process
of investigation. In this context, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Honble CIC in
the matter of Shankar Sharma and Ors. vs. Director General of Income Tax (Inv)-II & CPIO,
Department of Income Tax (Decision dated 10.07.2007); Smt. Durgesh Kumari vs. Income Tax
Department (Decision dated 26.8.2011), Shri. Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Directorate General of Central
Excise Intelligence, New Delhi (Decision dated 20.07.2011), Shri Narender Bansal, Delhi vs. The
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Delhi (Decision dated January 13, 2014), Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs.
SEBI (Decision dated November 28, 2014 in F. No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000196) and Shri Arun
Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision dated December 19, 2014 in F. No.
CIC/SM/A/2013/000834/MP). Upon a consideration of the aforesaid, I find no
deficiency with the respondent's response to the instant query of the appellant's
application.

6.1

Query at point no. 3 of the appellants application In his response, the respondent
informed the appellant that complaints were submitted with SEBI in fiduciary capacity and
contained personal information of the complainants, disclosure of which, may cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of the individual and may also endanger the life or
physical safety of the person(s). In view of the same, the respondent informed the
appellant that the aforesaid information was exempted from disclosure in terms of
Sections 8(1)(e), 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.

6.2

I note that the respondent had inter alia invoked the provisions of sections 8(1)(g) and
8(1)(j) of the RTI Act to deny information to the appellant. In this regard, I note that the
documents sought by the appellant i.e. complaints filed against Prayag Infotech HiRise
Limited, may contain information inter alia relating to the address, contact number, etc. of
the complainant therein, which is in the nature of personal information of a third party,
the disclosure of which would endanger the life and physical safety and also would cause
unwarranted invasion of privacy of such third party [reliance is placed on the observations
Page 2 of 3

of the Hon'ble CIC in Shri Amit Agrawal vs. Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (Decision dated
October 1, 2013)]. In addition, disclosure of such information may lead to identification of
source of information given in confidence [reliance is placed on the observations of the
Hon'ble CIC in Shri M.S. Srinivas vs. Central Excise I, Bangalore (Decision Page 3 of 3 dated
8.4.2013)]. Further, I note that SEBI, being a public authority under the RTI Act as well as
the regulatory authority for the securities market, would have received such documents
from third parties in 'fiduciary relationship'. In this context, I note that while disposing of a
batch of Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009,
6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607 of 2007, the Honble High Court of Delhi in
its Order dated November 30, 2009, held that the 'person' referred to in section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act
will include a public authority. It also held that: In a fiduciary relationship, the principal emphasis is on
trust, and reliance, the fiduciarys superior power and corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the
fiduciary. It requires a dominant position, integrity and responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith
and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not oneself. In view of the aforementioned
discussion, I find no deficiency in the respondent's response informing the appellant that
the information sought through the instant query, was exempted under sections 8(1)(e),
8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act.
7.

I, therefore, find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai
Date: November 19, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 3 of 3