Appellant advised to access the websites of NSDL and CDSL for specific information as sought in the query.: Appellate Authority, SEBI.
The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of Lakshminarayanan Ramanujam v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4326 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Lakshminarayanan Ramanujam had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 21st of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 11th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 16th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 11th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information: “How much charge a client account is charged, for each sale and purchase of stock exchange listed company share by 1. NSDL 2. CDSL.” The respondent, in response to the query, provided information regarding the relevant clauses of the Master Circular (reference no. SEBI/HO/MRD2/DDAP/CIRP/P/2021/18 dated February 05, 2021) dealing with Fees / Charges/ Tariff. The respondent also informed that Point Number 1.8.6 of the said Master Circular mentions about the dissemination of tariff/charge structure of DPs on the website of the depositories. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the Master Circular on the SEBI website. The appellant was also advised to access the websites of NSDL and CDSL for specific information as sought in the query. The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false. The appellant, in his appeal, inter alia, stated that SEBI should provide the charges of NSDL for each equity sale transaction, for clarity. For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri (CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, order dated April 12, 2007) held that “….. unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.” Similar observations were made by this forum in the matter of Nirali Mehta vs. CPIO, SEBI (October 15, 2018). In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.
Appeal No. 43221 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43221 CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 21 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 dealing with Fees Charges Tariff. The respondent also informed that Point Number 1.8.6 of the said Master Circular mentions about the dissemination of tariff charge structure of DPs on the website of the depositories. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the Master Circular on the SEBI website. The appellant was also advised to access the websites of NSDL and CDSL for specific information as sought in the query. Appeal No. 43221 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete misleading or false. The appellant in his appeal inter alia stated that SEBI should provide the charges of NSDL for each equity sale transaction for clarity. I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent has clearly informed regarding the Master Circular which deals with the dissemination of tariff charge structure of DPs on the website of the depositories. On consideration I find that the requested information is available in the public domain and the same can be accessed by the appellant. In this context I note that Hon’ble CIC in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagriheld that “….. unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely or on payment of a pre determined price that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.” Similar observations were made by this forum in the matter of Nirali Mehta vs. CPIO SEBI October 15 2018). In view of these observations I find that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide a response to such request for information as made by the appellant through his application. 6. Notwithstanding the same I note that the respondent has guided the appellant to access the websites of NSDL and CDSL for seeking specific information regarding tariff charge. The respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 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: July 15 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 