Respondent adequately guides the appellant on lodging his grievance on the SCORES portal.: Appellate Authority, SEBI

Appeal No. 42921 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42921 Vignesh Reddy Angadi CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 27 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005of the RTI Act. The respondent also advised the appellant to lodge his grievance on the SCORES portal and also refer to the FAQs available on the SEBI website. Further the respondent also provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters relating to securities market. Appeal No. 42921 4. Ground of appeal On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided by the respondent. The appellant in his appeal submitted that his original RTI application is based the SCORES Portal and NICE Portal. The appellant also submitted that “the appeal concerns verification of facts for Arbitration and acceptance for Fee receipt.” 5. On perusal of the application I find that the same is vague since the precise information or the exact context in which the information is sought is not ascertainable from the query. An applicant is expected to specify the subject matter and the exact information required by him while filing an application under the RTI Act. In the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs. CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of Indiathe Hon’ble CIC held: “Since the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact information he wanted the CPIO could not have provided any specific information to him. We would like to advise the Appellant that he might like to specify the exact information he wants from the SEBI and prefer a fresh application before the CPIO.” In view of these observations I find that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is not clear or specific. Accordingly no interference is warranted at this stage. 6. Notwithstanding the above I note that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant by providing the information with respect to lodging his grievance if any on the SCORES portal. 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 02 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 Vignesh Reddy Angadi v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4291 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act. The appellant, Mr Vignesh Reddy Angadi had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 27th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 2nd June, 2021 on his application, the appellate deicide to file an appeal on the 3rd of June, 2021. In his application on the 27th of May, 2021, the appellate was seeking the following information: “1. Deficiency Letter in the AM No. NSE………….2/ISC/ARB filed by Vignesh Reddy Angadi against Kotak Securities Ltd needs payment proof. Please find below the receipt for bank transfer for the arbitration fees from Kotak Mahindra Bank. Transfer amount : Rs.17300.00 Beneficiary name : National Stock Exchange of India Limited Bank name : HDFC BANK LTD Account number : XXX0017 Date and Time : 26 May 2021 Reference number : 1…….917 Remark : NA The National Stock Exchange Limited Hyderabad had requested for Arbitration Fees for the above mentioned request in the subject and the payment for the same needs to be acknowledged.” The respondent said in response to this application that this particular query was not specific and vague and the same cannot be construed as seeking information. ‘Information’ has been defined under section 2(f) of the Right to Information Act. In addition, the respondent gave an advice to the appellant asking him to lodge if he has any grievance on the SCORES portal, also to refer to the FAQs on the SEBI website and further also provided the appellant toll free numbers that were launched by SEBI to help facilitate replies to multiple queries that the genral public may have on the matters on securities market. The appellant authority while quoting Shri S. C. Sharma vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated August 30, 2012), the Hon’ble CIC held: “Since the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact information he wanted, the CPIO could not have provided any specific information to him. We would like to advise the Appellant that he might like to specify the exact information he wants from the SEBI and prefer a fresh application before the CPIO.” In view of these observations, he found that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is neither clear nor specific and hence, no interference may be warranted at this stage.