The real intention of legislators in Section 2(f)of the RTI act is to provide the right information  of public affairs to a public authority – THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 45721 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 45721 Om Prakash Lakhina CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated November 14 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2005 and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent has provided the copy of the file notes with respect to the appellant’s letter dated October 29 2021. I also note that the information has been provided after severing the names and identities of SEBI officials. In my opinion the respondent has addressed the query by providing the information sought by the appellant. As regards the non disclosure of information relating to the name and identity of official(s) I find that a similar issue was settled by the in H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors.wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had ruled that: "... it cannot be said that section 2(f) of the Actwherein it was concluded that the disclosure of information relating to the name etc. of SEBI official(s) is exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further I note that the decision making process in SEBI is a collective affair in which officers of different levels contribute and hence the names of SEBI officials are internal to the functioning of SEBI and the said information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity. In view of these observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 12. Further I note that the appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the forgery manipulation of accounts was done by UTI AMC on February 25 2021. On consideration I find that the said submission of the appellant is in the nature of grievance. 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…”. Similar view was taken by the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Yogesh Malhotra vs. PIO Delhi Police (order dated May 28 2021). 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 same I am of the opinion that the said submission does not warrant consideration at this stage. 13. 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. 45721 Place: Mumbai Date: January 20 2022 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: The real intention of legislators in Section 2(f)of the RTI act is to provide the right information  of public affairs to a public authority – THE SECURITY AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA An application was filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 against the respondents because the information sought by the appellant has not been properly provided by the respondent and  the appellant further submitted that the forgery/manipulation of accounts was done by UTI AMC the appeal was heard by ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the RTI Act in Appeal No. 4578 of 2021 The appellant in queries no 1and 2 inquired about diary number and file no and the respondent responded that there is no separate diary number and file number. The respondent also informed that the letter was identified by complaint no. PMOPG/E/2021….68 . in query number 3, 5, and 6 the following information about action taken by the board and other things the responded in response stated that the complaint was perused and was found that the queries raised were without any factual data and that the complaint seems to be a personal dispute about non-receipt of legal dues. and some further responses were given by the respondent. The authority pursued all the queries and responses and noted that the information has been provided after severing the names and identities of SEBI officials. the non-disclosure of information relating to the name and identity of official(s) the authority relied on H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors and Kulwinder Singh vs. CPIO, SEBI and it was concluded that the disclosure of information relating to the name, etc. of SEBI official(s), is exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act further the appellant submitted that the forgery/manipulation of accounts was done by UTI AMC in this the authority relies on Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow finds that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the RTI Act. And from the above submissions, it was decided that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.