Application filed under the right to information act, 2005 dismissed for seeking information beyond the definition provided -The Security and Exchange Board of India
Application filed under the right to information act, 2005 dismissed for seeking information beyond the definition provided -The Security and Exchange Board of India The appellant applied for the right to information act,2005  seeking more information from the respondent and requiring access of information was observed and dismissed by S V MURALI DHAR RAO APPELLATE AUTHORITY in the case of V R Srinivasan versus CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai in appeal no. 4593 of 2022 The queries in the present application were that in online transfer in banks the entries appear in the bank statements are confirmed only by the banks after 6 pm time daily However the limit for doing trading or taking delivery of scrips are allowed to clients or investors or traders by Risk Management Departments of stockbroking concerns by an email from customer care departments of such concerns which generally do copy and paste the bank entries that appear in the bank statement and send the same. but if any unwanted incident occurs i.e. any bank reverse the entry instead of confirming it after 6 pm due to various reasons If it is a large amount then it not only affects the liquidity of the fund position of the concern broken but will also harm the financial position of its clients or investors or traders to the larger extent and put them into greater financial distress The accounts departments of these concerns usually undertake reconciliation task against the ledger entries next day alone and put themselves on a safer side Hence please provide the SEBI regulations or rules to prevent these kinds of practices. The applicant required regulations and rules in this regard. The respondent in response to the query stated that the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and accordingly, the same cannot be defined as seeking “information”, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and the respondent also provided the information regarding lodging of grievance on the SCORES portal of SEBI further the respondent also provided the free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters related to the securities market. The appellate authority in this regard stated that the appellant was not satisfied with the information provided and also alleged the required information was denied by the respondent the authority agrees with the response provided to the appellant and finds that providing an answer to such query is beyond the scope of the definition of ‘information’ under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The authority relied on the case of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mehta vs. CPIO, SEBI, and do not find any deficiency in the response.  From the above observation, the authority decides that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Appeal No. 45922 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 45922 V R Srinivasan CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated December 03 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2005 of the RTI Act. The respondent also provided information regarding lodging of grievance on the SCORES portal of SEBI and tracking the status of the same. Further the respondent provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters related to securities market. Further the appellant was advised to refer to the FAQs on “Investor Grievances SCORES” available on the SEBI website. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the said FAQs. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided by the respondent. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration I agree with the response provided by the respondent that the query is in nature of seeking clarification opinion. The query also appears to be a situational query. I find that providing answer to such query is beyond the scope of the definition of ‘information’ under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Mr. Mahendra Kumar Mehta vs. CPIO SEBIheld that: “9. This Commission observes that the appellant herein attempts to seek legal opinion clarification from the CPIO to his situational queries with regard to the circular rules regulations notification etc. regarding trading member for taking stock in pledge collateral or security for providing margin to do trade in reference to derivatives segment charging of interest and GST precaution to be taken by trading member for protection of constituents individual HUF etc. . Therefore the CPIO is not supposed to interpret information or to furnish replies to situational queries or to furnish clarifications. Hence such queries seeking legal opinion clarification from the CPIO are not covered within the definition of information u Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Accordingly this Commission upholds the contention put forth by the CPIO.” In view of these observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 6. Notwithstanding the above I find that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to refer to the SCORES website for lodging any grievance. Accordingly I find that no further intervention of this forum is warranted at this stage. 7. 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. Appeal No. 45922 Place: Mumbai Date: January 27 2022 S V MURALI DHAR RAO APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 