Appellant has to specify the exact information he wants from the SEBI.: Appellate Authority, SEBI.

Appeal No. 42921 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42921 Mohan Kumar Gupta CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated May 17 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 of the RTI Act 2005. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that incomplete misleading or false information was provided. The appellant in his appeal queried whether these companies are registered through SEBI or not. 5. Upon a perusal of the query I note that the same is vague. Further it is difficult to ascertain what specific information has been sought by the appellant. I am inclined to agree with the observation of the respondent that the request for information made therein was vague and not specific and 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 Decision dated August 30 2012) the Hon’ble CIC held: “Since the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact Appeal No. 42921 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 vague and not specific. I note that the appellant in his appeal queried whether these companies are registered through SEBI or not. I find that the request for this particular information was 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 Limited decided on January 28 2014) an 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 08 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 Mohan Kumar Gupta v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4299 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Mohan Kumar Gupta had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 17th of May, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 7th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 7th of June, 2021 on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 9th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the information of trading document like agreement copy of 1. Guru Trade 2. OE Trade 3. Olymp Trade 4. Export Option 5. V option 6. Capital Com 7. T trade etc. The respondent, in response to the query, informed that the same is incomplete and vague. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as “information”, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, 2005. The appellant filed the appeal on the grounds of that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false information. The appellant, in his appeal, queried whether these companies are registered through SEBI or not. The appellant authority noted that the same is vague. Further, it is difficult to ascertain what specific information has been sought by the appellant. For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, 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 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, the appellant authority found that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is vague and not specific. Mr. Baiwar noted that the appellant, in his appeal, queried whether these companies are registered through SEBI or not and found that the request for this particular information was 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 Limited (decided on January 28, 2014), an information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at appeal stage.