Appeal Nos. 3967 of 2020 filed by R D Lukad

Last updated: 05 December 2020

Save Share

Quick Summary

This appeal concerns an RTI application filed by R D Lukad seeking copies of SEBI circulars related to BSE charging reinstatement fees instead of penalties. The respondent provided a link to a 1994 circular. The appellant argues this information is incomplete and misleading, as BSE has since changed its nomenclature to charge reinstatement fees, and seeks the correct, up-to-date circulars.

Court :
SEBI

Brief :
The appellant had filed an application dated October 17, 2020 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated November 06, 2020, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated November 09, 2020, against the said response dated November 06, 2020. 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.

Citation :
Appeal No. 3967 of 2020

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 3967 of 2020
R D Lukad : Appellant

Vs.

CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated October 17, 2020 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated November 06, 2020, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated November 09, 2020, against the said response dated November 06, 2020. 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. Queries in the application –The appellant, vide his application dated October 17, 2020, sought the following information:

1. Copy of circular issued by SEBI for allowing BSE to charge Reinstatement Fees instead of earlier practice of Reinstatement Penalty.

2. Copy of circular issued by SEBI for allowing BSE to change nomenclature of penalties to fees and vice-versa at its own discretion and demand the same from listed Companies.

3. The respondent, in response to the queries, provided the link for accessing the Circular dated December 19, 1994, issued by SEBI with respect to fees for reinstatement of listing.

4. Ground of appeal- The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that incomplete, misleading or false information was provided by the respondent. The appellant, in his appeal, has inter alia submitted that BSE has now changed its nomenclature and started charging reinstatement fees. Further, the appellant also sought the correct circulars issued by SEBI in line with current trends of reinstatement fees charged by BSE.

To know more in details find the attachment file

FAQ :

The application sought copies of SEBI circulars that allowed the Bombay Stock Exchange (BSE) to charge 'reinstatement fees' instead of the previous 'reinstatement penalty'.

The CPIO provided a link to a SEBI circular dated December 19, 1994, concerning fees for reinstatement of listing.

The appellant filed an appeal on the grounds that the information provided was incomplete, misleading, or false, as BSE had changed its practice to charging reinstatement fees.

The appellant sought the correct SEBI circulars that permitted BSE to change the nomenclature from penalties to fees and to charge these fees to listed companies.