Appellant had not requested for any ‘information’ as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act: Appellate Authority, SEBI.

Appeal No. 43221 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43221 Suraj Joshi CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 19 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 Total number of complaints received each year b) Mode of receiving complaints stated in point 2aboveThe respondent in response to query number 2 informed that the information sought is maintained in separate individual files placed at multiple locations across SEBI and collating the same for providing response to query would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence the same is exempt under section 7(9) of the RTI Act 2005. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that Appeal No. 43221 it was deemed that the information sought by him was only in respect to the information available with SEBI head office. I note that the appellant had requested for number of complaints received each year since 2015 against Maitreya Plotters and Structures Pvt. Ltd. It is understood that the information sought by the appellant has to be collected and collated from a large amount of data information maintained in separate individual files which are placed at multiple locations across SEBI. Further it is understood that providing the said information would require the respondent to analyse the dataand categorise the data as requested in the application. Considering the same the respondent has rightly observed that providing the information will disproportionately divert the resources of SEBI and claimed exemption under section 7of the RTI Act. In this context I note that the Hon ble CIC in the matter of Shri Praveen Agarwal vs. SEBIhad held that: “It is true that given the volume and the complexity of the information requested by the appellant it would be impossible to locate and collate it without substantial research effort. A public authority cannot be obliged to engage in it for the benefit of an applicant who may not be the only and the last such applicant. Many more would want to have this privilege which doubtless would lessen the applicant s research burden while increasing it for the public authority. Considering the fact that the information requested is unarguably in the public domain and that its range and volume is such that it would attract provisions of Section 7(9) of the Act it is not possible to authorize its disclosure in the form in which the appellant had requested.” In view of the aforesaid I find no deficiency in the respondent s response. I note that the appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the information was deemed to have been sought with respect to the information available with SEBI head office. On plain reading of the application dated May 19 2021 the same cannot be inferred. I also note that this clarification has been provided by the appellant in his appeal. I am of the opinion that the same does not warrant consideration at this stage. 7. Query number 7 The appellant vide query number 7 sought the following information: “7. Along with SEBI are there any other Government agencies Legal force looking after this Case Complaints if yes please provide the details of the same.” The respondent in response to query number 7 informed that the query is in the nature of inquiry inquisition and hence cannot be construed as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act 2005. Appeal No. 43221 9. On a perusal of the instant query of the appellant s application I agree with the observation of the respondent that the same is in the nature of inquiry inquisition. Further I find that the appellant had not requested for any information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Notwithstanding the same I note that the respondent in response to query number 1informed that the Hon’ble Nashik District Court has considered the money raised by the company and its directors as deposits under the Maharashtra Protection of Interests of DepositorsAct 1999 and has further directed to form a committee to repay the investors’ money. I find that the respondent has already provided the information available with him. In view of the same I am of the opinion that no interference of this forum is warranted at this stage. 10. Query number 9 The appellant vide query number 9 sought the following information 9. On Dated 22 05 2017 a complaint letter against this company along with necessary attachments was sent to SEBI BKC office Bandra vide speed post no EM688756650INDate when SEBI registered the above Complaint b) Name of the officer to whom the Complaint was allotted c) Current status of the Complaint d) Till Date has been any communication with the complainant with regards to the above complaint lodged If Yes Please provide the details of the same e) Is there any other documentation available in this regards with SEBI If yes please provide the details of the same. 11. The respondent in response to query number 9 observed that the requested information is exempt from disclosure in terms of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act as the same does not pertain to the appellant and the same relates to personal information with respect to third parties the disclosure of which has no relationship to any public activity or interest and may cause unwarranted invasion into the privacy of the individual and may also endanger the life or physical safety of the person. The appellant in his appeal submitted that the requested information pertains to his father and that the same may be provided to him. 12. On perusal of the queries I find that the appellant sought information which may relate to personal information with respect to third party and the disclosure has no relationship to any public activity or interest. In my view the exemption from disclosure under Section 8(g) andof the RTI Act is not nullified by the fact that the information seeker happens to be related to the complainant. Further it is Appeal No. 43221 observed that the appellant in his application has neither made any submission nor provided any proof to that effect. The appellant has made such submission for the first time in this appeal. Further no documents have been submitted for substantiating the claim. In this context I note that similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Shri Kunal vs. CPIO Syndicate Bank (Order dated October 06 2015). In view of the same I see no ground to fault the decision of the respondent. 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 14 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 Suraj Joshi v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4320 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) and Section 7 (9) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Suraj Joshi had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 19th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 9th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 9th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 15th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information: “7. Along with SEBI are there any other Government agencies/Legal force looking after this Case/Complaints, if yes please provide the details of the same.” The respondent, in response to query number 2, informed that the information sought is maintained in separate individual files, placed at multiple locations across SEBI and collating the same for providing response to query would disproportionately divert the resources of the public authority. Hence the same is exempt under section 7(9) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant, in his appeal, inter alia, submitted that it was deemed that the information sought by him was only in respect to the information available with SEBI head office. The appellant filed the appeal on the grounds of that the information was refused. . On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply to query numbers 2, 7 and 9. For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO, United India Insurance Company Limited (Judgment dated January 21, 2021), wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated January 17, 2013), it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC held: “… we would also like to observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or interpretations from the CPIO…”. Mr Baiwar also made reference in the matter of Shri Kunal vs. CPIO, Syndicate Bank (Order dated October 06, 2015). In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.