Settlement order passed with regard to the  suo motu settlement application filed – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 45821 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 45821 Geeta Khattar CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated November 24 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2005of the RTI Act for providing information in respect of query number 12 related to SEBI. The respondent by a letter dated December 22 2021 responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated December 24 2021 against the said response dated December 22 2021. 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. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete misleading or false. I note that the application was transferred under Section 6(3) of the RTI Act for providing information in respect of query number 12. In view of the same I am only dealing with the said query and the response provided thereto in this appeal. 3. Query number 12 The appellant vide query number 12 of her application dated November 24 2021 inter alia sought the GOI online portal details through which she could send case write to JSFM ASFM WGIA and SEBI Board Members. The respondent in response to the aforesaid query informed that the information sought is not available with SEBI. However the respondent informed that the name and designation of the present Members of SEBI Board are available on the SEBI website. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the same. 5. On consideration I find that the respondent has categorically stated that the requested information is not available with SEBI and I have no reason to disbelieve the same. In this context I note that the Hon’ble Appeal No. 45821 CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO SEBIheld: “… if it SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” In view of these observations I find that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such nonavailable information. 6. Notwithstanding the above I note that the respondent has guided the appellant to access the details of the members of the SEBI Board. Accordingly I find that the query has been adequately addressed and no further intervention warranted at this stage. In view of the above observations I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed. Place: Mumbai Date: January 20 2022 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: Settlement order passed with regard to the  suo motu settlement application filed – THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Applicant Mrs. Amrita Prabhakar Deodhar filed a suo motu settlement application proposing to settle, without admitting or denying the findings of fact and conclusions of law, through a settlement order for the alleged violation of Regulation 10(5) of SEBI regulation,2011 and the proceedings for settlement were initiated under S.K. MOHANTY, ANANTA BARUA (Whole Time Member) in the  Settlement Application No. 6537 of 2021 The applicant was a promoter of APlAB Limited and was the individual holder of 24.35% share capital of the company along with a person acting in concert holding 18,75,639 equity shares representing 37.51% of the total share capital of the company. On  July 08, 2021, the applicant acquired 0.85%of equity shares of the total company and the aforesaid shareholding resulted in the increase of total holding from m 24.35% to 25.20% and it was a violation as prescribed under Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 3(3) of SAST Regulations. In terms of  Regulation 10(1)(a)(i) of the SAST Regulations. The applicant before acquiring the share should have been informed at least four days before but the same was delayed six days and within the applicant was alleged to have violated Regulation 10(5) of the SAST Regulations. The high powered advisory authority considered the application and the settlement terms proposed by the applicant and settled upon the amount ₹3,31,500/- The authority passed the order under Section 15JB of the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and in terms of Regulations 23 read with Regulation 28 of the Settlement Regulations the order proposed the condition and direction for the applicant to follow hence the settlement is completed. Click here to read the order