Application questioning the answers given for raised queries was found satisfactory by the appellate authority – The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 45521 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 45521 Prateek Tewari CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated September 18 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 against the said response dated October 21 2021and Sahara Housing Investment Corporation Ltd. based on misconstruction and erroneous interpretation of the exceptions provisions provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act. On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided to query numbers 1 to 23and the response provided thereto in the following paragraphs. 3. Query number 1 The appellant vide query number 1 of his application dated September 18 2021 sought the copies of all the Material Document Information Communication for the period from January’ 2010 to August’ 2010 made by SEBI Board to ENAM Securities Pvt Ltd JM Financial Consultants Pvt Ltd Edelweiss Capital Ltd IDBI Capital Markets and Securities Ltd. Daiwa Security SMBC India Pvt Ltd. The appellant also sought the communication information received by SEBI from these entities. The respondent in response to query number 1 informed that the correspondences sent by SEBI were issued in the course of its regulatory function and it may contain information of commercial confidence Appeal No. 45521 relating to the entities whom the notice was issued or even other entities. Therefore the same is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. The respondent also informed that the replies and submissions made by an entity may contain the information received in confidence from various entities as part of the regulatory process and held by SEBI in fiduciary capacity. Therefore the same is exempt from disclosure u s 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the information sought is neither the commercial confidence relating to third party nor held by SEBI in fiduciary capacity and further would not harm the competitive position of any third party. The appellant also submitted that he had sought information with respect to prosecution of Sahara. I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent denied disclosure of information by observing that the same is available to SEBI in fiduciary capacity and includes information pertaining to commercial confidence. I have no reason to disbelieve the respondent’s observation. I note that in Writ PetitionNos. 8396 2009 16907 2006 4788 2008 9914 2009 6085 2008 7304 2007 7930 2009 and 36007 the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in its order dated November 30 2009 held that the ‘person’ referred to in section 8(1)of the RTI Act will include a public authority. It also held that: “In a fiduciary relationship the principal emphasis is on trust and reliance the fiduciary’s superior power and corresponding dependence of the beneficiary on the fiduciary. It requires a dominant position integrity and responsibility of the fiduciary to act in good faith and for the benefit of and to protect the beneficiary and not oneself”. Further the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Mr. Ashok Kumar Rajak vs. CPIO SEBI held that “Further the details such as investigation report file noting directions and various communication involves with the third party information which is received from other agencies is being held by them in fiduciary capacity hence the same is barred from disclosure under section 8(1)(e) &of the RTI Act 2005.” I find that SEBI being the regulatory authority for the securities market gets various references documents from market participants and the information contained therein are received in ‘fiduciary relationship’. I also find that such reference documents received by SEBI or correspondences made by SEBI with other entities may contain information in the nature of commercial confidence disclosure of which may adversely impact the competitive position of the concerned entities. I therefore find that such information pertaining to commercial confidence and which contains information received in ‘fiduciary relationship’ from market participants etc. is exempted from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 6. Query numbers 2 and 3 The appellant vide query numbers 2 and 3 sought the following information: Appeal No. 45521 “2. Provide copies of all the ‘Office Note Official Noting’ of the proceedings made by the Officer(s) of SEBI Board for the period from January’ 2010 to August’ 2010 in respect of the enquiry proceedings conducted by the SEBI Board into the alleged violation of the provisions of the SEBI Act 1992 Securities Contract the Depositories Act’ 1996 & the Provisions of the section 55A of the Companies Act’ 1956 and the Rules & Regulations made or directions issued by SEBI Board thereof by SIRECL and SHICL pursuant to the complaint dated 25.12.2009 & complaint dated 04.01.20103. Kindly provide the copies of all the material document Information Communication Office Note on the basis of which an order dated 16.08.2010 was passed by SEBI for initiating an investigation in the above referred subject matter Provide copy of the Order dated 16.08.2010 ” In response to the aforesaid queries the respondent informed that information sought is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a) 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act as the same pertains to internal functioning of SEBI and is strategic in nature disclosure of which may hamper the decision making by SEBI in its supervisory and regulatory role. The respondent also informed that requested information may contain information available to SEBI in fiduciary relationship and may include information which is of commercial confidence the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the response provided to query number 2 and 3 is vague evasive misconstrued misconceived and without any basis. The appellant also referred to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry No. 915]. Further the appellant submitted that the respondent is bound to disclose the information which involves as element of larger public interest. I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. On consideration I agree with the response of the respondent that the requested information pertains to information which is strategic in nature. I find that the disclosure of the same would affect and compromise the regulatory functions and roles of SEBI. The same may also hamper decision making by SEBI. I also agree with the respondent that the requested information is held in a fiduciary capacity and the same may form part of office notes file notings etc. I note that the requested information will also be governed by the observations made in para 5 above. In view of the observations I find that the requested information is exempt Appeal No. 45521 from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a) 8(1)(d) and 8(1)(e) of the RTI Act. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 10. Further I note that the appellant in his appeal has referred to the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the matter of RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistrywhich inter alia states that RBI is clearly not in any fiduciary relationship with any bank and that there is no relationship of ‘trust’ between them. I note that the appellant has not made any submission as to how the said judgement is relevant in the extant matter. I note that the facts and circumstances of the said order were totally different. In this regard reliance is placed on the matter of Arun Damodar Sawant vs. SEBI Order dated September 26 2018) wherein the Hon’ble CIC had accepted the submission of SEBI regarding existence of fiduciary relationship even after considering the appellant’s submissions wherein he had relied upon the aforementioned judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of RBI vs. Jayantilal N. Mistry. Further I note that the appellant has not established how the information involves an element of larger public interest. In view of the said observations I do not find any merit in the submission of the appellant. 11. Query numbers 4 and 5 The appellant vide query number 4 sought details of the ‘Investigating Officer’ appointed by SEBI Board to investigate into the violation in the matter of issuance of OFCD by SIRECL and SHICL. Vide query number 5 the appellant sought the copy of the order circular or office note in regards to the appointment of the “Investigating Officer”. In response to query numbers 4 and 5 the respondent informed that the information sought relates to personal information 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 same is therefore exempt in terms of Section 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. As regards the non disclosure of information relating to name of investigating officer I find that a similar issue was settled in H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors.wherein the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka had ruled that: "... it cannot be said that section 2(f) of the Act wherein it was concluded that the disclosure of information relating to the name etc. of SEBI official(s) is exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further I note that the decision making process in SEBI is a collective affair in which officers of different levels contribute and hence the names of SEBI officials handling the matter are internal to the functioning of SEBI and the said information relates to personal information the disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity. In view of the observations I do not find any deficiency in the response. 14. Query numbers 6 The appellant vide query number 6 sought the copy of the ‘Report of the Investigation’ submitted by the Investigating Officer to the SEBI. In response to query 6 informed that the investigation report may contain information received in confidence from various entities as part of the regulatory process and held by SEBI in fiduciary capacity and also may include information pertaining to commercial confidence the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. The respondent also informed that the requested information contains personal information 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. Therefore the information sought is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) 8(1)(e) 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Additionally the respondent informed that in the same matter prosecution proceedings are ongoing in respect of the companies SIRECL and SHICL and its directors. Therefore the information is also exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as disclosure of the information may impede the prosecution of offenders. The respondent also informed that the information that can be disclosed in the matter with respect to the queries raised in the captioned RTI application is already available in the SEBI order dated November 24 2010. 16. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the respondent denied information wilfully and deliberately as regards the disclosure of information sought by the appellant. Further the appellant submitted that the respondent has failed to mention how revealing the information could impede the process of prosecution of offenders specially when the prosecution of offenders has already been concluded. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. I note that investigation report is the culmination of the part in the process of investigation wherein the information is sought gathered and analyzed to crystallize the preliminary charges for which the entities individuals are issued show cause Appeal No. 45521 notices. Such information gathered by SEBI may include information relating to commercial and business interest as submitted by the entities individuals against whom the investigation is conducted by SEBI. Such information is summoned by SEBI in the discharge of its regulatory function and in its authority as a regulator of the securities market. Such information thus called for is provided by the entity irrespective of whether the same is confidential or in the nature of commercial confidence. Under the provisions of the law in force at the time it is incumbent on the entities individuals during investigations to provide the requisite information lest they be visited upon with the consequences of non compliance with the summons issued by SEBI in the matter. Hence it is the duty of the entities individuals during investigation to provide the requisite information to SEBI without any recourse to the claim of privacy or confidentiality. Furthermore I note that under the scheme of SEBI Act Section 11C empowers SEBI to investigate and based on investigation appropriate actions are initiated in accordance with the provisions of the SEBI Act. Further Section 11C embarks a duty upon every person to provide the information called for by Investigating Officer and any failure thereto is a punishable Act under Section 11Cof SEBI Act. Further such person by virtue of Section 11C of SEBI Act is bound to disclose said information to SEBI even though disclosure of such information is confidential and against business or commercial interest of such person or an entity relating to which the information is provided to the Investigating Authority. I note that such kind of information received by SEBI is third party information and is received in its fiduciary capacity. I note that similar contentions were accepted by the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. The CPIO SEBI order dated August 04 2020). Further I note that the respondent has categorically stated that prosecution proceedings are ongoing in respect of the companies SIRECL and SHICL. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the CIC AT A 2007 00007 observed that "17. Thus the term investigation used in Section 8(1)(h) in the context of this Act should be interpreted broadly and liberally. We cannot import into RTI Act the technical definition of investigation one finds in Criminal Law. Here investigation would mean all actions of law enforcement disciplinary proceedings enquiries adjudications and so on. Logically no investigation could be said to be complete unless it has reached a point where the final decision on the basis of that investigation is taken. In that sense an investigation can be an extended investigation. In the case of the Income Tax Department investigation into tax evasion can be said to be over or complete only after the final adjudication about the tax liability had been made after the matter has gone through all the stages of appeals and revisions as well as a final decision about prosecuting or not prosecuting that person has been taken by an appropriate competent authority. The respondents are therefore right in holding that it would be a misnomer to hold that investigation in matters such as this the moment the Investigating Officer submits his report to the competent authority spells the end of investigation." In view of these observations I find that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(d) 8(1)(e) and 8(1)(h) of Appeal No. 45521 the RTI Act. information 18. Query numbers 7 and 8 The appellant vide query numbers 7 and 8 sought he following “7. Kindly Provide for the list of the Board members members of the committee dealing with the above subject matter in relation to the refund to the Investors pursuant to the order direction of the Supreme Court for the years 2012 13 2013 14 2014 15 2015 2016 2016 17 2017 18 2018 19 2019 20 & 2020 21 . 8. In relation to question no. 7 above kindly provide for the procedure being followed by the Board member committee looking into the above subject matter in the process of its decision making ” 19. The respondent in response to query numbers 7 and 8 provided the information regarding directions passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide which Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal a retired Judge was appointed to oversee whether directions issued by the Court were properly and effectively complied with by SEBI and other officials. The respondent also informed that the instructions made by Justice B.N. Agarwal SEBI with regards to refund process were informed to the Hon’ble Supreme Court from time to time by way of filing 22 status reports in total. Further the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The respondent also guided the appellant to access the orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this matter. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the information provided is partial incomplete vague misplaced misconstrued and misconceived. I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. With respect to query number 7 I note that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Further no specific submission has been made by the appellant in his appeal regarding the response of the respondent. In view of the same I find that no further interference is warranted at this stage. 21. With respect to query number 8 I note that the appellant has sought information regarding procedure followed by the Board in the process of its decision making. I find that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification from the respondent. In this context I note that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of G. Vairamathu vs. CPIO Railways Southern Railwaysheld that “7. This Commission observes that the CPIO is not obliged to provide clarification to the appellant regarding the procedure of compassionate appointment under the RTI Act 2005.” In view of these observations I find that the respondent is not obliged to provide clarification to the appellant. Accordingly no further intervention Appeal No. 45521 is warranted at this stage. information 22. Query numbers 9 and 10 The appellant vide query numbers 9 and 10 sought the following “9. In relation to question no. 7 above kindly provide the copies of all the “Office Note Official Notings Instructions Records of the proceedings made by the Board Members Committee for the years 2012 13 2013 14 2014 15 2015 16 2016 2017 2017 18 2018 19 2019 20 &2020 21 . 10. Provide copies of all the Office Note Official Notings instructions records of the proceedings made by the SEBI Board members Committee on the issue of refund to be made to the investors ” 23. The respondent in response to the aforesaid queries informed that the information sought pertains to the internal functioning of SEBI and is strategic in nature disclosure of which may hamper the decision making by SEBI. The respondent also informed that the requested information is exempt under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act as the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the response suffers from legal infirmity. Further the appellant submitted that Supreme Court is only monitoring the cases of SIRECL and SHICL. 24. On consideration I am of the opinion that the office notes notings etc. may contain information which is confidential and strategic in nature concerning regulatory functions of SEBI. Since the requested information is regarding the issue of refund to be made to investors I note that the same may also contain information which is personal in nature and disclosure of which would cause unwarranted invasion of the privacy of third parties. In view of these observations I find that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. 25. Query numbers 11 12 and 13 The appellant vide query numbers 11 12 and 13 sought he following information “11. Provide details of the exact Balance Amount as on 31st August 2021 in the various SEBI SAHARA refund Bank Accounts especially opened for the repayment purpose in terms of the Order of the Supreme Court of India Appeal No. 45521 12. Provide for the Bank wise details of the Amountas on 31st August 2021 deposited into various Nationalised Banks by SEBI in SEBI Sahara Account in terms of Order dated 31.08.2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India 13. What was the exact amount recovered by the SEBI board through the attachment of assets of various SAHARA Group of Companies pursuant to various orders passed by Supreme Court of India Kindly provide the details of the attached assets & the Recovery made against each of such assets in tabular format ” In response to query numbers 11 and 12 the respondent informed that pursuant to the various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the attachment orders dated February 13 2013 passed by SEBI in the matter SIRECL SHICL an aggregate amount of Rs. 15 473 Crores has been deposited to ‘SEBI Sahara Refund” Account. The respondent also informed that the amounts along with interest earned on them after providing for making refunds to the bondholders of SIRECL and SHICL have been deposited in ‘Nationalized Banks’ in terms of the judgement dated August 31 2012 of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Further the respondent also informed the total amount deposited in ‘Nationalized Banks’ as on March 31 2021. The respondent also stated that the information sought in respect of amount deposited in various nationalized banks is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act as the same relates to commercial confidence the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. With respect to query number 13 the respondent informed that the information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(d) as it relates to commercial confidence and disclosure of the same could harm the competitive position of the entities. 27. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the disclosure of information of the total amount deposited in nationalized banks is a public information and information based on record and data available with SEBI. The appellant also submitted that the respondent failed to appreciate the fact that appellant sought information for total money recovered by SEBI Board through the attachment of assets of various SAHARA Group Companies. pursuant to various orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 28. With respect to query number 11 pertaining to balance amount in various SEBI Sahara Refund Bank Accounts I note that the respondent has adequately addressed the query by providing the information available with him. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 29. With respect to query number 12 I note that the respondent has provided the total amount deposited in the Nationalized Banks. I note that the respondent with respect to the query seeking “bank wise Appeal No. 45521 details” of amount deposited in various nationalized banks has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act and stated that the information sought in respect to various Nationalized Banks relates to commercial confidence the disclosure of which could harm the competitive position of the entities. On consideration I find that the respondent has not explained how the said exemption would apply. Therefore the respondent shall reconsider the query number 12 afresh and provide an appropriate response thereon. 30. On perusal of query number 13 I note that the appellant has sought amountrecovered by the SEBI Board through the attachment of assets of various SAHARA Group of Companies pursuant to various orders passed by Supreme Court of India. Further I note that the respondent has denied the information on the ground that the same is exempt under Section 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act. On consideration I find that the respondent has not explained how the said exemption is applicable to this query. Therefore the respondent shall reconsider the query number 13 afresh and provide an appropriate response thereon. information 31. Query numbers 14 15 and 16 The appellant vide query numbers 14 15 and 16 sought the following “14. Provide the details of all expenses made from August 2012 till date i.e 31.08.2021 from the SAHAR SEBI Account with head wise bifurcation & Agencies Head names 15. Kindly Provide details of SEBI Employees getting remuneration compensation salary from SAHAR SEBI Account and the amount being given to each of such employees per month and total amount paid till date i.e 31.08.2021 toward disbursement of salaries 16. Kindly provide details of the exact amount of remuneration compensation salary being paid per month or otherwise to JusticeMr. BN Agarwal appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above referred matter from the SAHARA SEBI Account and total amount paid to him from the date of his Appointment till date i.e 31.08.2021 ” In response to the aforesaid queries informed that in terms of Hon’ble Supreme Court Order dated August 31 2012 details of expenses incurred by SEBI were submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing Interlocutory Applications and or Status Reports duly approved by JusticeMr B.N. Agarwal appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the said matter. The respondent also informed that the requested information is exempt from disclosure under Section 8(1)(h) as the matter is presently pending before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Appeal No. 45521 33. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court is only monitoring cases of SIRECL and SHICL and pendency of Sahara cases are more in the nature of compliance. The appellant also submitted that pendency of a case before Supreme Court is no bar to disclose information. I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent has claimed exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. The respondent has also informed that the matter is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In addition to the same I note that the details of expenses incurred by SEBI were submitted to Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of filing Interlocutory Applications and or Status Reports. In view of the order dated July 10 2007 in the matter of Shri Shankar Sharma & Ors. vs. The Director of Income TaxII & CPIOas discussed in para 17 above I agree with the response of the respondent and hold that the requests made herein by the appellant squarely attract the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 35. Query number 19 The appellant vide query number 19 sought he following information “19. Provide the details eg. Exact Amount of Refund date of Refund and Name of the Investor against such refund made till 31.08.2021 ” In response to query number 19 the respondent informed that the information sought by the appellant relates to personal information and third party subscribers in OFCDs issued by SIRECL & SHICL and disclosure of which has no relation to any public activity or interest and is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the appellant has not sought any information which is related to privacy of the person. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent denied disclosure of the requested information in terms of 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In this context reference is made to the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Central Public Information Officer Supreme Court of India Vs. Subhash Chandra Agarwal in Civil Appeal No. 10044 of 2010 with Civil Appeal No. 10045 of 2010 and Civil Appeal No. 2683 of 2010 wherein the import of "personal information" envisaged under Section 8(1)(j) of RTI Act has been exemplified in the context of earlier ratios laid down by the same Court in other matter(s). The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that: Appeal No. 45521 59. Reading of the aforesaid judicial precedents in our opinion would indicate that personal records including name address physical mental and psychological status marks obtained grades and answer sheets are all treated as personal information. Similarly professional records including qualification performance evaluation reports ACRs disciplinary proceedings etc. are all personal information. Medical records treatment choice of medicine list of hospitals and doctors visited findings recorded including that of the family members information relating to assets liabilities income tax returns details of investments lending and borrowing etc. are personal information. Such personal information is entitled to protection from unwarranted invasion of privacy and conditional access is available when stipulation of larger public interest is satisfied. This list is indicative and not exhaustive..." In view of the above observations I am of the opinion that the requested information relates to personal information of 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. Hence the same is exempted from disclosure under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. sought he following information Query numbers 18 20 21 22 and 23 The appellant vide query numbers 18 20 21 22 and 23 “18. In reference to query no. 13 Is the verification process complete If the reply to query is affirmative provide the exact date on which the process of verification of the pending refund claim has been completed 20. What is the total amount of the refund made by the SEBI to the Investors in the above referred matter for the period of Jan 2012 till 31st August 2021 21. What is the last date fixed by SEBI for the investors to apply for the refund in the above referred matter Prove for the copy of the ‘Office Note Official Notings Instructions records in relation to fixing the last date for claiming refunds by the Investor 22. What is number of total pending applications as on 31.08.2021 received by the SEBI for claiming 23. Provide the details of the total amount to be refunded to the Investors against the pending claims as of refund by the Investors on 31.08.2021 ” In response to the aforesaid queries the respondent informed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated August 31 2012 inter alia directed SEBI to refund to the subscribers the moneys invested by them in the OFCDs issued by the two companies i.e. SIRECL and SHICL only. The respondent Appeal No. 45521 also informed that as per the direction of the court and the advice of JusticeB.N. Agarwal SEBI issued press release on May 28 2013 and press advertisements during the months of August September 2014 and December 2014 advising the bondholders of SIRECL and SHICL to make necessary applications for refund. Further the respondent provided the cut off date i.e. last date for receiving the applications for refund along with the details of the relevant advertisements. The respondent also informed the total number of applications received total number of applications against which refunds were made total amount refunded as on March 31 2021 etc. The respondent also guided the appellant to access the details of applications received and refunds made to bond holders which is available on the SEBI website. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that the respondent has responded to the queries in a vague and evasive manner and that exemption under Section 8 cannot be claimed. 41. On consideration I note that the respondent has adequately addressed the queries by providing the information available with him and also guiding the appellant to access the information available on the SEBI website. Further I note that the appellant has not made any specific submission regarding the response provided by the respondent. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. 42. Further I note that the appellant in his appeal submitted that exemption under Section 8 cannot be claimed. On perusal of the response I find that the respondent has not claimed any exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act. In view of the same I do not find any merit in the submissions made by the 43. Considering the above observations I remit the matter to the respondent for de novo consideration of query numbers 12 and 13 of the application dated September 18 2021 and to send appropriate response to the appellant in terms of RTI Act within 30 working days from the date of receipt of this 44. The Appeal is accordingly disposed of. Place: Mumbai Date: January 06 2022 ANAND BAIWAR APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA appellant. order. 

Summary: Application questioning the answers given for raised queries was found satisfactory by the appellate authority – The SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA An appeal questioning the unsatisfactory answers for the 23 queries raised by the applicant was heard and disposed of by THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Mr. ANAND BAIWAR in the case of Prateek Tewari versus CPIO, SEBI Appeal No. 4554 of 2021. The background of the case is that the appellant filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the respondent responded to the application filed and the appellant filed an appeal on the basis that the respondent has not given proper information about the investigation and inquiry conducted in the matter of the issuance of OFCDs by Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Ltd. based on misconstruction and erroneous interpretation of the exceptions/provisions provided under Section 8 of the RTI Act the appellant is not satisfied with the provided in queries 1to 23(except 17) and the appeal is dealt by the appellant authority. The authority looked upon the queries and answers given by the respondent and found out that the answer given in most of the queries are satisfactory and have correct responses towards question some queries asked for confidential information like queries 9 and 10 and they were answered according to the rules. The authority concludes that the respondent has adequately addressed the queries by providing the information available with him and also guiding the appellant to access the information available on the SEBI website and the appellant has not made any specific submission regarding the response provided by the respondent hence the authority does not find any default in giving answers. further, It was found out that exemption under Section 8 cannot be claimed because the respondent has not claimed an exemption under Section 8 of the RTI Act. The authority, at last, remits the matter to the respondent for de novo consideration of query numbers 12 and 13 and to send a proper response to the appellant regarding these queries, and the appeal is disposed of. Click here to read the order