Appellant alleged that the Kotak securities that have been pledged with Kotak Mahindra bank to obtain a bank loan has been forged.: 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 Vignesh Reddy Angadi v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4325 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Suraj Joshi had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 19th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 14th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 14th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 14th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information: “The Loan Against Securities is taken from Kotak Mahindra Bank and the documentation is forged and hence a second set is requested. Provide the procedures for Loan transactions as approved by the SEBI. Provide clarification on the Loan approvals and subsequent procedures.” The respondent, in response to the application, informed that the query is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion and accordingly, the same cannot be construed as seeking “information”, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 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, alleged that the Kotak securities that have been pledged with Kotak Mahindra bank to obtain a bank loan has been forged. Hence the appellant requested verification of procedure from SEBI. On consideration, appellate authority agreed with the observation of the respondent that the query is in the nature of seeking clarification/opinion from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information; or to interpret information; or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the Right to Information Act, 2005. It was found that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of the RTI Act. Consequently, the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context, reference is made to the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. 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 Vignesh Reddy Angadi CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 19 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 of the RTI Act. 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 alleged that the Kotak securities that have been pledged with Kotak Mahindra bank to obtain a bank loan has been forged. Hence the appellant requested verification of procedure from SEBI. Appeal No. 43221 5. On consideration I agree with the observation of the respondent that the query is in the nature of seeking clarification opinion from the respondent. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. I find that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2of the RTI Act. Consequently the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limited wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBII note that the Hon’ble CIC held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to InformationAct the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO...”. In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. Further on perusal of the submission made by the appellant it appears that he has certain grievances regarding loan against securities taken from Kotak Mahindra Bank. I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India Lucknowheld: “The Appellant is informed that … redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum…”. In view of these observations I find that if the appellant has any grievance the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the RTI Act. 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 