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: 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 Shailendrakumar H CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 15 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005in the month of January 2021 as outgoing charges. What is the reason behind i) BANDHAN BANK LIMITED EQ TANLA SOLUTIONS LIMITED EQ NEW RE.12. The appellant has complained to Kotak Securities2 times but appellant got no response. If there is any penalty they have to pay to customer due to their ignorance. 3. If answer for above case is yes then provide the way in which appellant can charge them. 4. The appellant has also complained to SEBIEbut they also closed the ticket even though the appellant has confirmed that issue is not resolved during telephonic conversation. Provide the escalation matrix in SEBIE. 5. How can the appellant be ensured that such kind of mistake did not happen during rest of months. ” The respondent in response to query numbers 1 2 3 4 and 5 informed that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification grievance. The respondent also informed that taking action or resolution of grievance does not come under the provisions of RTI Act. Therefore it does not qualify as information Appeal No. 42821 under provisions of section 2(f) of RTI Act. With regard to closure of the complaint in SCORES the appellant was advised to file a review in SCORES portal in case he is not satisfied with the resolution of the complaint. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the access to the requested information was refused. The appellant in his appeal has reiterated his queries raised in his application. The appellant has further submitted that he has a right to know where to escalate his grievance further. I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. On consideration I agree with the observation of the respondent that the queries are in the nature of seeking clarification from the respondent regarding outgoing charges for same ISINs. It is understood that the respondent is not supposed to create information or to interpret information or to furnish clarification to the appellant under the ambit of the RTI Act. I find that the said queries cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2of the RTI Act. Consequently the respondent did not have an obligation to provide such clarification under the RTI Act. In this context reference is made to the mater of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limitedwherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO SEBII note that the Hon’ble CIC held: “... we would also like to observe that under the Right to InformationAct 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...”. In view of the said observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. Further the appellant in his appeal has raised grievance regarding alleged non resolution of his complaints filed with Kotak Securities SEBI. 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…”. Further in the matter of Ravindra Mamgain vs. CPIO Decision dated May 28 2021) the Hon’ble CIC held that “Further the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the is a matter of grievance which cannot be adjudicated as far as mandate of RTI Act is concerned.” 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. Appeal No. 42821 7. With respect to the query with respect to escalation matrix in SEBI I find that the respondent has addressed the query by providing the information available with him regarding review of resolution of complaint. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 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: June 30 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 Shailendrakumar H Ughadmathe v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4284 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act. The appellant, Mr Shailendrakumar H Ughadmathe had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 15th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 27th of May, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 27th of May, 2021 on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 31st of May, 2021. In his application on the 15th of May, 2021, the appellate was seeking the following information: “1. The appellant has been charged for same ISINs (listed below) in the month of January 2021 as outgoing charges. What is the reason behind i) BANDHAN BANK LIMITED EQ (ISIN: INE54……14) ii) TANLA SOLUTIONS LIMITED EQ NEW RE.1/(ISIN: INE48…….32)  The respondent to this replied by saying that taking action or resolution of grievance does not come under the provisions of RTI Act since query numbers 1,2,3,4 and 5, are of the nature of seeking clarification/grievance. Hence, it does not qualify under Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and was advised to file the application on the SCORES portal in case of dissatisfaction with the resolution provided of the complaint. The appellate filed the appeal on the basis of him not being granted the information he was seeking. The appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to 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), he 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…”. In view of the above-made observations, the Appeal was accordingly dismissed since the appellate authority found that there was no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent.