Appellant has 8 queries regarding Karvy’s closure cum transfer application: SEBI, Part 4.
It was found that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of 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 the said observations, the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification/opinion under the RTI Act. Notwithstanding the above, it was noted82 that the respondent has informed regarding action that can be taken by an investor/ complainant, if he is not satisfied with the redressal of his complaint. It was fond that the queries have been adequately addressed. Accordingly, he did not find any deficiency in the response. Further, on perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding the activities of the TM and handling of complaints on the SCORES portal. It was noted that the Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow (Decision dated September 6, 2012), held: “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, it was found that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
Appeal No. 43621 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43621 Ashok Kumar Agarwala CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 25 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 held that “The Commission observes that the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties. The Commission therefore does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.” Further I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO SEBIheld: “… if itdoes not have any such information in its possession the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” In view of these observations I find that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such non available information. 6. Query number 5 The appellant vide query number 5 inter alia sought information regarding action taken against the said TM for their illegal activities of collecting excessive statutory charges from the clients. In response to query number 5 the respondent informed that if any action is taken by SEBI the same would be available in the public domain on the SEBI website. The respondent also provided the link to access the SEBI website for updated information from time to time. It is understood that SEBI conducts examinations investigations confidentially to examine alleged or suspected violations of laws and regulations relating to the securities market. However post investigation whenever violations are established appropriate enforcement actions are taken under provisions of the SEBI Act 1992 and Regulations framed thereunder which culminate in the issuance of orders and the same are available on the SEBI website which is in public domain. I note that the respondent also provided the link to access the SEBI website. In view of the same I do not find any deficiency in the response. 8. Query number 6 The appellant vide query number 6 sought the following information “6. What are the rights of the client in this regard and what action can the client take against such illegal activities and against whom ” 9. With respect to query number 6 the respondent provided the link for accessing the document enumerating the rights and obligations of the broker and client as prescribed by SEBI and Stock Appeal No. 43621 Exchanges. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the SCORES portal for lodging a grievance if any. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Further I note that the appellant has not made any specific submission against the response provided by the respondent. In view of the same no interference of this forum is warranted at this stage. 11. Query numbers 7 and 8 The appellant vide query numbers 7 and 8 sought the following information 7. Why all the complaints made against this TM with SCORES have been closed without taking any action against the TM and without any Redressal of the complaint filed by the client 8. Why the Complainant consent is not taken before closing the complaint on sided by the ISC of NSE. 12. The respondent in response to the queries informed that if an investor complainant is not satisfied with the redressal of his complaint he can appeal against the resolution in SCORES or at Exchange. The respondent also provided the link for accessing the grievance mechanism at NSE. 13. On perusal of the queries it appears that the same are in the nature of seeking clarification opinion from the respondent regarding procedure followed for disposal of complaints. 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. In this context reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limitedwherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBI I 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 the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification opinion under the RTI Act. 14. Notwithstanding the above I note that the respondent has informed regarding action that can be taken by an investor complainant if he is not satisfied with the redressal of his complaint. I find that the queries have been adequately addressed. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. Appeal No. 43621 15. Further on perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding the activities of the TM and handling of complaints on the SCORES portal. I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India Lucknow held: “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: August 04 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 