“Exit load charged by Asset Management Companies (AMCs) in various mutual fund schemes, is not maintained by SEBI…”: 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 Vinod Kumar Agarwal CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated July 01 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005gained over last 20 Years due to the exit load levied in accordance with SEBI orderand how they have utilized it. The respondent in response to the query informed that the information sought by the appellant with regard to exit load charged by Asset Management Companiesin various mutual fund schemes is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. Hence the same is not available with SEBI. appellant. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete misleading or false. The appellant in his appeal alleged incorrect levy of exit load. Further the appellant has also submitted that SEBI should compile the details and forward the same to the I have perused the application and the response provided thereto. On consideration I do not find any reason to disbelieve the observation that the requested information is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. In this context I Appeal No. 43621 note that the Hon’ble CIC did not find any need to intervene in the matter of Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar vs. Securities and Exchange Board of Indiawhile observing that “10. the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties. The Commission therefore does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.” Further I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO SEBIheld: “… if itdoes not have any such information in its possession the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” In view of these observations I find that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such nonavailable information. Further the appellant in his appeal has submitted that SEBI should compile the details and forward the same to the appellant. I find that the respondent is only expected to see that the information to be furnished to an applicant is the one which exists with the public authority when it receives an application under the RTI Act. The respondent has categorically stated in its response that the information sought was not available with SEBI. The respondent is not expected to obtain any information for the sole purpose of providing the same to an applicant under the RTI Act. 7. On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding levy of exit load in MFs redeemed prior to completion of one year. I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India Lucknowheld: “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…”. 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. 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 09 2021 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA 

Summary: Further, it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), held: “… if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its possession, the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no information to be given.” In view of these observations, it was found that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such non–available information. Further, the appellant, in his appeal, has submitted that SEBI should compile the details and forward the same to the appellant. Mr Baiwar found that the respondent is only expected to see that the information to be furnished to an applicant is the one which exists with the public authority when it receives an application under the RTI Act. The respondent has categorically stated in its response that the information sought was not available with SEBI. The respondent is not expected to obtain any information for the sole purpose of providing the same to an applicant under the RTI Act. On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant has grievance regarding levy of exit load in MFs redeemed prior to completion of one year. It was noted that the Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow (Decision dated September 6, 2012), 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…”. 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 RTI Act.