“Respondent provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters related to securities market.”: SEBI, Part 2.

Appeal No. 43621 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43621 Anang Manubhai Shah CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated June 19 2021 under the Right to Information Act 2005 of RTI Act. The respondent also provided information regarding lodging and tracking the status of complaints online. Further the respondent also provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters related to securities market. In addition to the same the appellant was also advised to refer to FAQs available on the SEBI website. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that he had sought the timeline for getting money back into his account after filing the closure form. Appeal No. 43621 5. On perusal of the query I note that the appellant had sought information regarding the timeline for transfer of shares from Karvy to J M Financial account. I find that the same is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion regarding a future event which cannot be construed as an information available on record. 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 query cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 of 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 matter of Vineet Pandey vs. CPIO United India Insurance Company Limited wherein similar observations were made by the Hon’ble CIC. Further it also appears that the appellant has grievance regarding transfer payment of money back into his account after filing closure form. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police North East District Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India Lucknow and Mr. H.K. Bansal v. CPIO & GMMTNLhas held that the RTI Act 2005 is not the proper law for redressal of grievances disputes. 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. 7. Notwithstanding the above I find that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to refer to the SCORES website for lodging any grievance and also provided helpline service numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters relating to securities market. I find that the application has been adequately addressed by the respondent. 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: August 02 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: On perusal of the query, it was noted that the appellant had sought information regarding the timeline for transfer of shares from Karvy to J M Financial account. It was also found that the same is in the nature of eliciting a clarification or opinion regarding a future event, which cannot be construed as an information available on record. It was 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. Appellate Authority found that the said query cannot be construed as seeking ‘information’ as defined under section 2 (f) of 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 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, it also appears that the appellant has grievance regarding transfer/payment of money back into his account after filing closure form. In this context, Mr Baiwar noted that the Hon’ble CIC, in plethora of decisions including Shri Vikram Singh v. Delhi Police, North East District, (CIC/SS/A/2011/001615 dated February 17, 2012), Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna v. LIC of India, Lucknow (CIC/DS/A/2012/000906 dated September 06, 2012) and Mr. H.K. Bansal v. CPIO &amp; GM (OP), MTNL (CIC/LS/A/2011/000982/BS/1786 dated January 29, 2013), has held that the Right to Information Act, 2005 is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes. In view of these observations, it was found that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. Notwithstanding the above, it was found that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to refer to the SCORES website for lodging any grievance and also provided helpline service numbers launched by SEBI, to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters relating to securities market. Appellate Authority also found that the application has been adequately addressed by the respondent. Accordingly, Mr Baiwar did not find any deficiency in the response.