CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 2nd Floor, C-Wing, August Kranti Bhawan, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi -110066. Tel: 011 – 26182597, 26182598 Email: [email protected]

File No.:- CIC/KY/A/2014/001164-BJ

Appellant : Mr. P. Perisami, No. 15, G2, 4 th Cross St. United Colony, , – 600024. M. 9283313502

Respondent : Assistant Secretary, Madras Stock Exchange Ltd. Exchange Building, P.O. Box No. 183, New No. 30, Second Line Beach, Chennai – 600001.

Date of Hearing : 10/03/2017 Date of Decision : 10/03/2017

Date of filing of RTI application 16.05.2014 CPIO’s response 23.05.2014 Date of filing the First appeal 03.06.2014 First Appellate Authority’s response Not on record Date of diarized receipt of complaint by the Commission 24.06.2014

O R D E R

FACTS:

The appellant vide his RTI application dated 16.05.2014 had sought information regarding the reply of MSE on his previous application to MSE on 11.13.2014 against one Mr. Andrew Julian David and the action taken against him till date, copy of the Case Report of Capital Infomine from the beginning including the enquiry officer upto 15.05.2014 and issued related thereto.

The Assistant Secretary, Madras Stock Exchange, Chennai vide its letter dated 23.05.2014 provided a response and stated that the respondent authority was not a public authority to come within the purview of RTI Act, 2005. However, information was provided to him. Dissatisfied with the response, the appellant filed a first appeal before the FAA (Not on record). The order of the FAA, if any, is not on record of the Commission. Subsequently, a second appeal was filed before the Tamil Nadu Information Commission, which in turn forwarded the appeal to the Commission.

HEARING: Facts emerging during the hearing:

Page 1 of 3

The following were present: Appellant : Mr. P. Perisami (M. 8939057002) through VC; Respondent : Mr. Swaminathan, AGM, MSE/Madras Enterprises Ltd., Chennai (M: 9841977419) through VC;

The appellant reiterated the contents of his RTI application. The respondent submitted that vide their letter dated 23.05.2014 the appellant was informed that Madras Stock Exchange (MSE) was not a public authority under the purview of the RTI Act, 2005. It was explained that in accordance with the SEBI Exit Circular issued in May, 2012, the MSE exited from the Stock Exchange activities as it was a dormant entity. The complaint of the appellant was in respect of his Trading Partner Andrew Julian David who had allegedly indulged in fraudulent activities. Several complaints were received against him. A public notice was issued advising the constituents of the expelled member to lodge their claims with supporting documents to be placed before the Defaults Committee of the Exchange. The erstwhile MSE subsequently suspended the Trading Membership of Mr. A. David w.e.f. 09.04.2014 as the Trading Partner and all such claims received from the defaulters were putup before the Disciplinary Action Committee. The report of the Disciplinary Action Committee was treated as confidential. The claim of the appellant had been rejected by the Committee as it was outside the purview of the Stock Market. The respondent also informed that the MSE had since been wound up and a new entity in the name of Madras Stock Enterprises Ltd. has been incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956.

On the issue of defining ‘public authority’ under Section 2(h) of RTI Act,2005, the Commission’s attention was drawn to the specific provision under the Act as reproduced below:

Section2 (h) : "public authority" means any authority or body or institution of self- government established or constituted—

(a) by or under the Constitution; (b) by any other law made by Parliament; (c) by any other law made by State Legislature; (d) by notification issued or order made by the appropriate Government, and includes any—

(i) body owned, controlled or substantially financed; (ii) non-Government organisation substantially financed,

directly or indirectly by funds provided by the appropriate Government;

The Commission observed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Thalappalam Ser. Coop. Bank v. State of Kerala and others (Civil Appeal No. 9017 of 2013) had held as under:

Page 2 of 3

“40. The burden to show that a body is owned, controlled or substantially financed or that a non-government organization is substantially financed directly or indirectly by the funds provided by the appropriate Government is on the applicant who seeks information or the appropriate Government and can be examined by the State Information Commission or the Central Information Commission as the case may be, when the question comes up for consideration.”

The appellant was not able to dispose off his burden of proving that the respondent organisation was a public authority under Section 2(h) of the RTI Act, 2005.

DECISION:

Keeping in view the facts of the case and the submissions made by both the parties, no further intervention of the Commission is required in the matter.

The appeal stands disposed accordingly.

(Bimal Julka) Information Commissioner

Authenticated True Copy:

(K.L.Das) Deputy Registrar

Page 3 of 3