Appeal No. 1251 of 2011. Case: 1. Dhan Raj Bagrecha, 2. Ms. Chandu Bala Bagrecha Vs CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai. Securities and Exchange Board of India

Case NumberAppeal No. 1251 of 2011
JudgesPrashant Saran
IssueRight to Information Act, 2005 - Section 11; Securities and Exchange Board of India Act
Judgement DateAugust 22, 2011
CourtSecurities and Exchange Board of India


Prashant Saran, (At Mumbai)

  1. The appellants had filed an application dated June 20, 2011 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The respondent, vide letter dated July 20, 2011, responded to the appellants. Aggrieved by the response of the respondent, the appellants have filed this appeal dated July 26, 2011 and an addendum to appeal dated August 05, 2011.

  2. I have carefully examined the application, the response, the appeal and the addendum to appeal and find that the matter can be decided on merit based on the material available on record.

  3. The appellants had sought certain information from M/s. Pantaloon Retail (India) Limited (PRIL) through the respondent by initiating third party procedure enumerated under section 11 of the RTI Act. The respondent informed the appellants that the PRIL is not required to file the information with SEBI and hence, the information sought by them was not available with SEBI. In this appeal, the appellants have requested this Appellate Authority to order the respondent to supply the desired information to them by initiating third party procedure.

  4. I find that the third party procedure can only be invoked when the respondent intends to disclose any information or record, or part thereof which relates to or has been supplied by a third party. Hence the condition precedent to invoke the said provision is availability of information with the public authority. The respondent is not expected to obtain any information from the PRIL by invoking the provisions of section 11 of the RTI Act. Further, it is clear from the response of the respondent that the information sought by the appellants is not available with SEBI. The respondent can''t be obliged to collect such information from PRIL for the sole purpose of providing the same to the appellants under the RTI Act. Similar view has been taken by the Hon''ble CIC in the matter of Shri K. Viswanathan Vs. SEBI (Order dated June19, 2009).

    In the matter of Shri K. Viswanathan Vs. SEBI, the appellant therein had sought minutes of Board meetings as well as attested copies of the Board Resolution of a company registered with the NSE as well as the BSE. The stand of respondent was that SEBI had no information nor did it access such information for regulatory purposes. The Hon''ble CIC had agreed with the respondent and held that no disclosure can be authorized. I find that similar facts existed in this case as well and therefore, the dicta of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT