“The appellant, in his appeal, submitted that the date of uploading of the order on SEBI portal was not provided…”: SEBI, Part 2.

Appeal No. 43721 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43721 Amar Kakaria CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated June 26 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005and Mr R.K Jain vs. UPSCNo. 3538 2021 and date of its uploading on SEBI portal. The respondent in response to the query number 1 informed that there is no obligation on SEBI to upload the orders of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further Hon’ble Supreme Court is the original holder of the information. It was also informed that as a matter of practice SEBI uploads important court orders on the website upon receipt of copy of the order. However the respondent provided the Appeal No. 43721 link for accessing the order dated March 12 2021 which is available on the SEBI website. The appellant in his appeal submitted that the date of uploading of the order on SEBI portal was not provided. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration it is observed that the respondent did not have an obligation to provide the requested information since SEBI is not the original holder of the information. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in Shri Amiya Kanti Patnaik Vs. Central Excise Departmentobserved that “14. In my view the holder of the information in cases where a set of information is held by more than one public authority and only one of which holds it in original only the public authority which holds the original of the information document under a statute rule notification or instruction etc. should be construed to hold that information within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. It is only this public authority which is in a position to decide whether a given information was liable to be disclosed because it is this public authority which is in know of the condition of the submission and retention of the information the statutory or the other implications of such retention the status of its confidentiality and the conditions in which either the whole or a part of the information could be disclosed and whether if that is the case such an information is already in the public domain. These determinations could never be made by a public authority which came to receive this information in the form of photocopies or even in original for a temporary period for a specific purpose which in this case is for audit.” 7. Notwithstanding the above I note that the respondent informed regarding SEBI’s practice of uploading important court orders on the website. I also note that the respondent provided the link for accessing the order uploaded on the SEBI website. I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by guiding the appellant to access the relevant order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 8. Query number 2 The appellant vide query number 2 sought the copy of the speaking order if any passed by the competent authority at SEBI as per original order of Hon’ble High Court which was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent in response to query number 2 provided the copy of the communication dated June 24 2021. The appellant in his appeal submitted that a communication dated June 24 2021 was provided instead of a speaking order. Further the appellant submitted that the said communication does not have name and designation of the competent authority. Appeal No. 43721 10. On perusal of the query and the response I note that the respondent has provided the copy of the relevant document issued by SEBI in compliance with the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.8621. I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 11. Further the appellant in his appeal submitted that the said communication does not have name and designation of the competent authority. In this context 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. 12. Query number 3 The appellant vide query number 3 sought the designation and department of the competent authority which has passed the speaking order as directed by Hon. High Court. 13. The respondent in response to the said query informed that the said communication was issued with the approval of the Whole Time Member SEBI. Further I note that the name of the department issuing the said communication is already mentioned therein. I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. I find that no interference is warranted at this stage. 14. Query number 4 The appellant vide query number 4 sought the date of uploading the copy of the speaking order on SEBI portal and its link. In response to the said query the respondent informed that the said communication is not required to be uploaded on the SEBI website. The appellant in his appeal submitted that all orders issued by SEBI are uploaded on its portal. 16. On consideration I note that the respondent has clearly mentioned that the said communication is not required to be uploaded on the website. Further I note that the copy of the communication has been provided to the appellant. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the statement of the respondent. Accordingly no further intervention is warranted at this stage. 17. 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. 43721 Place: Mumbai Date: August 13 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: In this context, it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC in Shri Amiya Kanti Patnaik Vs. Central Excise Department (Order dated August 31, 2009), observed that “14. In my view, the holder of the information in cases where a set of information is held by more than one public authority and, only one of which holds it in original, only the public authority which holds the original of the information / document under a statute, rule, notification or instruction, etc., should be construed to hold that information within the meaning of Section 2(j) of the RTI Act. It is only this public authority which is in a position to decide whether a given information was liable to be disclosed because it is this public authority which is in know of the condition of the submission and retention of the information, the statutory or the other implications of such retention, the status of its confidentiality and the conditions in which either the whole, or a part of the information could be disclosed and whether – if that is the case – such an information is already in the public domain. These determinations could never be made by a public authority which came to receive this information in the form of photocopies – or even in original for a temporary period – for a specific purpose, which in this case is for audit.” Notwithstanding the above, it was noted that the respondent informed regarding SEBI’s practice of uploading important court orders on the website. It was also noted that the respondent provided the link for accessing the order uploaded on the SEBI website. It was found that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by guiding the appellant to access the relevant order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, no deficiency was found in the response. The appellant, vide query number 2, sought the copy of the speaking order, if any, passed by the competent authority at SEBI as per original order of Hon’ble High Court which was also upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent, in response to query number 2, provided the copy of the communication dated June 24, 2021. The appellant, in his appeal, submitted that a communication dated June 24, 2021 was provided instead of a speaking order. Further, the appellant submitted that the said communication does not have name and designation of the competent authority.