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.: Appellate Authority, SEBI.

Appeal No. 4293 and 42921 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42921 Appeal No. 42921 Mukesh Kumar CPIO SEBI Mumbai 1. The appellant had filed two applications dated May 22 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005against the said response dated June 01 2021 and June 02 2021. I have carefully considered the applications the replies and the appeals and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. 2. Queries in the application The appellant vide his application dated May 22 2021 sought the following information: “Currently the Karvy related demat account is freezed by CDSL. Request you to please provide me the information when these shares will be transferred in my other demat account which is with Zerodha Brokings Ltd. Freezed Karvy account 130 75 shares needs to be transferred to Zerodha demat account 120 ..2.” The appellant vide another application dated May 22 2021 sought the following information: “Requesting National Stock Exchange(NSE) to please provide me the information when you ref. No.: NSELUC 0007… 20 21 ISC. This is around the settlement of claims against the shares available in the pool account of Kavry Stock Brokings Ltd with BO Id 13014….5.” Appeal No. 4293 and 42921 The respondent vide similar replies dated June 01 2021 and June 02 2021 informed that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification grievance. It was further informed that taking action or resolution of grievance does not come under the provisions of RTI Act. Therefore it does not qualify as information under provisions of Section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. 5. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeals on the ground that the access to the requested information was refused. The appellant in his appeal inter alia requested that CDSL may be ordered to transfer his shares of Karvy into his active Zerodha Account. The appellant also requested that NSE may be ordered to transfer his remaining claim amount. I have perused both the applications and the response provided thereto. I find that the queries raised in the applications are in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion from the respondent which cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this regard I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBIheld: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to Information 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 same I find that the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification or opinion under the RTI Act. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. Further it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding transfer of shares and payment of claim amount. I note 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 I find that if the appellant has any grievance the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the RTI Act. 8. Upon a perusal of the appeals I find that the same are in the nature of requests for issuance of directions against NSE and CDSL. In this context I note that the Hon ble CIC in the matter of Shri Matloob Ahmed vs. Delhi Police East Districthad held that: "The RTI Act cannot be used to make the respondent to do certain things or to take certain action". In view of these observations I am of the opinion that these requests raised in the appeals do not warrant consideration at this stage. 9. In view of the above observations I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Appeal No. 4293 and 42921 Place: Mumbai Date: July 05 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: 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 Mukesh Kumar v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4293 of 2021 and Appeal No. 4294 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act. The appellant, Mr Mukesh Kumar had filed two applications via RTI MIS Portal on the 22nd of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by two letters on the 1st and 2nd of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving two letters from the respondent on the 1st and 2nd of June, 2021 on his application, the appellate decided to file two appeals on the 6th of June, 2021 (Appeal Nos. SEBIH/A/E/21/00201 and SEBIH/A/E/21/00202). In his application on the 22nd of May, 2021, the appellate was seeking the following information: “Currently the Karvy related demat account is freezed by CDSL. Request you to please provide me the information when these shares will be transferred in my other demat account which is with Zerodha Brokings Ltd. Freezed Karvy account – 130……75 shares needs to be transferred to Zerodha demat account – 120……..2.” In his second application dated 22nd of May, 2021, he was seeking the following information: “Requesting National Stock Exchange(NSE), to please provide me the information when you will provide the complete claim amount against the complaint ref. No.: NSELUC/0007…/20-21/ISC. This is around the settlement of claims against the shares available in the pool account of Kavry Stock Brokings Ltd with BO Id – 13014….5.” The respondent to this replied by saying that taking action or resolution of grievance does not come under the provisions of RTI Act since the queries are of the nature of seeking clarification/grievance. Hence, it does not qualify under Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellate filed the appeal on the basis of him not being granted the information he was seeking and had requested that CDSL may be ordered to transfer his shares of Karvy into his active Zerodha Account. The appellant also requested that NSE may be ordered to transfer his remaining claim amount. The appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), 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 same the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response and found that the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification or opinion under the RTI Act, 2005.