Appellant has to file the appeal again since he did not clearly state what exact information he wanted: Appellate Authority, SEBI.

Appeal No. 42821 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42821 Sarvesh Agnihotri CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 05 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005in last 10 years. Kindly provide date wise summary of all transactions of above one crore which can be done by any Individual or any company or proprietor or any NGO in last 10 years” The respondent in response to query 1 observed that the information sought is exempt from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the same is received in SEBI in a fiduciary capacity from third parties i.e. Stock Exchange and Depositories. In response to the query number 2 the respondent informed that the information sought is not clear and specific and is in the nature of seeking clarification. Accordingly the same cannot be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the access to the information requested was refused. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that he had sought information Appeal No. 42821 regarding entities who had bought sold equity and future & option for amount above Rs. 10 00 000 or more. The appellant also sought names of the individuals NGOs Proprietor etc. 5. Query number 1 I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. I note that the in his response the respondent had invoked the provisions of Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act to deny information to the appellant. In this context I note that while disposing of a batch of Writ Petition Civil) Nos. 8396 2009 16907 2006 4788 2008 9914 2009 6085 2008 7304 2007 7930 2009 and 3607 of 2007 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its Order dated November 30 2009 held that the person referred to in section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act will include a public authority. It also held that: “In a fiduciary relationship the principal emphasis is on trust and reliance the fiduciary’s superior power and corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position integrity and responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not oneself”. I find that SEBI being a public authority under the RTI Act as well as the regulatory authority for the securities market gets various documents from stock exchanges market participants etc. relating to market intelligence etc. and the said information contained in those documents are received in fiduciary relationship . In this regard reliance is also placed on the observations of the Hon’ble CIC in matter of Shri Ravi Ramaiya vs. SEBI Decision dated September 11 2015). In view of the aforesaid I agree with the observation of the respondent that the information sought by the appellant is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. 4. Query Number 2 I have perused the query and I find that the same is vague and not specific. Further it is difficult to ascertain what exact information has been sought by the appellant. I am inclined to agree with the observation of the respondent and I find that the same cannot be construed as seeking “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. In this context I note that in the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs. CPIO Securities and Exchange Board of India 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 I find that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is not The appellant in his appeal sought further information with respect to entities who had bought sold equity and future & option for amount above Rs. 10 00 000 or more. The appellant also sought names of Appeal No. 42821 the individuals NGOs Proprietor etc. I find that these requests were raised by the appellant for the first time in this appeal. As held by the Hon’ble CIC in Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limitedan information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at appeal stage. 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 01 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 Sarvesh Agnihotri v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4288 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2, 2 (f) and Section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act. The appellant, Mr Sarvesh Agnihotri had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 5th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 21st of May, 2021 on his application, the appellate decide to file an appeal on the 1st of June, 2021. In his application on the 5th of May, 2021, the appellate was seeking the following information: “Kindly provide how many transactions has been done in Bombay stock exchange and National stock exchange to buy and sell of equity shares of Bajaj finance Ltd &amp; Bajaj fin corp Ltd of above Rs. 10000000/- (Rs. One crore) in last 10 years. Kindly provide date wise summary of all transactions of above one crore which can be done by any Individual or any company or proprietor or any NGO in last 10 years.” The appellant had filed the appeal on the grounds that he had been denied the information that he was seeking. The appellant was seeking information regarding the entities who had bought/sold equity and future &amp; option for amount above Rs. 10,00,000 or more along with their names (individuals/ NGOs/ Proprietor etc.) The respondent in response noted that the information that the appellant was seeking was exempted under Section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to information Act as received in SEBI in a fiduciary capacity from third parties (Stock Exchange and Depositories). 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, 2005. Here, the appellate authority, Anand Baiwar noted that while disposing of a batch of Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 8396/2009, 16907/2006, 4788/2008, 9914/2009, 6085/2008, 7304/2007, 7930/2009 and 3607 of 2007, the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its Order dated November 30, 2009, held that the ‘person’ referred to in section 8(1)(e) of the Right to Information Act will include a public authority. It also held that: “In a fiduciary relationship, the principal emphasis is on trust, and reliance, the fiduciary’s superior power and corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position, integrity and responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not oneself”. Appellate Authority also placed reliance on the case of Shri Ravi Ramaiya vs. SEBI (Decision dated September 11, 2015) which exempted the appellant from seeking information under section 8 (1) (e) of the Right to information act.