“The appellant also alleged that the impugned order does not disclose the designation of the respondent…”: 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. 4377 of 2021 Nitin Goel CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated June 07 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 against the said response dated June 29 2021. I have carefully considered the application the response and the appeal 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 June 07 2021 sought the following information regarding the following: “A 1) Copy of procedure to be followed by DP to transfer the suspended Shares by “off Market Trade” to the willing buyer because the DP says that computer is not catching the suspended ISIN Number. A 2) I ask about 2 companies whos ISIN No. are showing as suspended. Please supply copy of document to  Off market transfer the another Demat account  Close the Demat account as we are incurring maintenance charges on the account  Re materialise the shares and hold in physical form.” The respondent in response to query numbers A1 and A2 informed that the same are not clear and specific and are in the nature of seeking clarification. Accordingly the same cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However the respondent informed that the norms governing the Depository Participants are stipulated in SEBI website under Regulations Master Circulars. It was also informed that the same is available in the website of the Appeal No. 43721 respective Depositories. Further the web links for accessing the said SEBI Regulations Master Circular was also provided. The Ground of appeal: On perusal of the application it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided by the respondent. The appellant in his appeal submitted that the requested information is not supplied. The appellant also alleged that the impugned order does not disclose the designation of the respondent. 5. Query number A1 On plain reading of query number A1 I find that the same is vague and not clear. I find that no information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act has been sought by the appellant. I note that in the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs. CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India the Hon ble CIC had held that: "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 and specific. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 6. Notwithstanding the above I note that the respondent has guided the appellant to access the relevant norms Master Circular governing the Depository Participantsheld that “….. unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either Appeal No. 43721 freely or on payment of a pre determined price that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.” In view of these observations I find that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide a response to such request for information as made by the appellant through his application. Notwithstanding the same I note 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. Further I note that the appellant in his appeal submitted that the designation of the respondent has not been indicated in the response. On perusal of the response I find that the same has been duly signed. I also find that the relevant information regarding the respondent has been mentioned in the said response. Further it is understood that the necessary disclosures regarding the name designation and other particulars of the respondent has been made on the SEBI website in compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the same is in public domain. Hence I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the appellant. 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 13 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: It was noted that in the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated August 30, 2012), the Hon’ble CIC had held that: “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, it was found that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is not clear and specific. Accordingly, no deficiency was found in the response by Mr Baiwar. With respect to the query number A2 seeking “document to ‘Off market transfer the another Demat account’, It was found that the same is vague and not clear. Further, it is difficult to ascertain what exact information has been sought by the appellant. It was found that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response to such vague query. With respect to the query seeking document to “Close the Demat account as we are incurring maintenance charges on the account” and “Re-materialise the shares and hold in physical form”, it was found that the respondent has guided the appellant to access the relevant information available on the websites of SEBI/ Depositories, which is available in public domain. In this context, it was noted that Hon’ble CIC in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri (CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, order dated April 12, 2007) held that “… unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.” In view of these observations, it was found that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide a response to such request for information, as made by the appellant through his application. Further, it was noted that the appellant, in his appeal, submitted that the designation of the respondent has not been indicated in the response. On perusal of the response, it was found that the same has been duly signed. It was also found that the relevant information regarding the respondent has been mentioned in the said response. Further, it is understood that the necessary disclosures regarding the name, designation and other particulars of the respondent, has been made on the SEBI website in compliance with Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act and the same is in public domain. Hence, no merit was found in the contention raised by the appellant.