CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION
.....
F.No.CIC/AT/A/2010/000663
Dated, the 24 November, 2010.
th
Appellant : Shri Deepak Kumar
Respondent : Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI)
s
This matter came up for hearing on 22.10.2010 partly through
videoconference (VC). Appellant was present at NIC VC facility at
Sangarur, while the respondents represented by Ms.Jeny John, DGM
and Ms.Jyoti Rathod, Manager were present at Commission’s office at
New Delhi.
2. Appellant’s RTIapplication dated 16.10.2009 related to an enquiry,
which, he believed, was conducted by SEBI on the basis of appellant’s
representation dated 08.08.2009 (reminder dated 25.09.2009) against a
thirdparty, viz. M/s.Fortune Equity Brokers (India) Ltd.
3. It is obvious that appellant has first attempted to invoke the
grievanceredressal process of the SEBI, but received no reply.
Thereafter, he chose to file his petition under the RTI Act.
4. He is one of the several who now reached the Commission under
the RTI Act having failed to receive a response from SEBI when they
invoke the grievanceredressal mechanism set up by SEBI.
5. It is time that SEBI gives a thought to why so many of such
grievanceredressal petitions, which ought to be addressed through
SEBI’s own mechanism set up for the purpose, are reaching the
CIC_AT_A_2010_000663_M_46061.doc
Page 1 of 3
Commission in the form of secondappeals under the RTI Act. It is
noteworthy that while such applicants received no response from SEBI
when they invoked the grievanceredressal setup, the routine reply of
SEBI to petitions under the RTI Act is that grievanceredressal through
RTI Act is not possible or permissible. The applicant is, therefore, twice
beaten first, when he receives no response when he invokes the
grievanceredressal setup of SEBI and second, when he comes under
the RTI Act he is told that grievance could not be redressed through RTI
laws. Used in this sense, RTI becomes the reason for blocking of
information to the petitioners such as this.
6. During the hearing, all that the appellant was interested in knowing
was why SEBI never took any action when he filed a complaint against a
thirdparty, viz. M/s.Fortune Equity Brokers (India) Ltd under SEBI’s own
grievanceredressal mechanism.
7. Respondents pointed out that on 16.04.2010 appellant was
informed about the status of his grievanceredressal, after he filed his
firstappeal.
8. Appellant pointed out that the reply he received from SEBI after the
Appellate Authority’s intervention was unconnected to what he had
sought through his earlier complaintpetition filed before SEBI. While the
action relating to his complaint lay with SEBI, he was now being informed
that an arbitration proceeding was already on in the matter brought up
through his complaint. He pointed out that, but for his filing the RTI
application, he would not have been provided even this information. So
much for the efficacy of SEBI’s investorgrievancesettlement mechanism!
9. While SEBI would be theoretically correct in saying that redressal
of grievances could not be sought through invocation of RTIproceeding,
the appellant, nevertheless is entitled to receive from them a firm reply
about the grievance he has against a thirdparty, who is under the
CIC_AT_A_2010_000663_M_46061.doc
Page 2 of 3
regulatory control of SEBI. I leave this to the better judgement of SEBI’s
top management.
10. For the purposes of the present petition, I allow the appellant to
inspect all files relating to his complaint against the thirdparty, viz.
M/s.Fortune Equity Brokers (India) Ltd. CPIO is directed that, within 3
weeks, on a date and time to be intimated to appellant, he shall be
allowed to inspect the above files. He shall be allowed to take copies of
the documents he might select.
11. Matter disposed of with these observations.
12. Copy of this direction be sent to the parties.
( A.N. TIWARI )
CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER
CIC_AT_A_2010_000663_M_46061.doc
Page 3 of 3