Appellant alleges that the respondent is trying to benefit the concerned party: Orders of AA under the RTI Act.

Appeal No. 42921 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 42921 Pradeep Vidhani CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated April 13 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 against the said response dated May 07 2021. I have carefully considered the application the response and the appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record. 2. Queries in the application The appellant vide query numbers 7(A) and 8 inter alia sought the following information with respect to GIC Housing Finance Limited7(A). Annual Accounts for the years 2015 16 2016 17 2017 18 2018 19 2019 20 as submitted to the Department along with all the information available with SEBI with respect to the company. 8. Inspection of record copy certified extracts of the Audited and Annual Report submitted by the company from the year 2015 to 2020 along with certified copy of documents sought above. The respondent in response to the query numbers 7(A) and 8 informed that in terms of SEBIRegulations 2015 listed companies are required to file reports statements documents and any other information with the recognized stock exchange(s) where it has listed its specified securities. The respondent also provided the links of the websites of the exchanges for accessing such information. 4. Ground of appeal On perusal of the appeal it appears that the appellant is aggrieved by the response provided by the respondent. The appellant in his appeal inter alia submitted that it is not clear from the response whether the requested information is available with the respondent. The appellant has also alleged that the respondent is trying to benefit the concerned party in some way or the other. Appeal No. 42921 I have perused the queries and the response provided thereto. I note that the respondent has clearly informed regarding availability of reports statements documents and any other information filed by the listed companies with the recognized stock exchange(s) where it has listed its specified securities. On consideration I find that the requested information is available in the public domain and the same can be accessed by the appellant. In this context I note that Hon’ble CIC in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri held that “….. unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely or on payment of a pre determined price that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.” Similar observations were made by this forum in the matter of Nirali Mehta vs. CPIO SEBI (October 15 2018). In view of these observations I find that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide a response to such request for information as made by the appellant through his application. Notwithstanding the same I note that the respondent has guided the appellant to access the websites of the stock exchanges where reports statements documents etc. filed by the listed companies are available. Accordingly I do not find any deficiency in the response. Further the appellant in his appeal has alleged that the respondent is trying to benefit the concerned party in some way or the other. I find that this is a baseless and unsubstantiated allegation which is not tenable. 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 07 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 Pradeep Vidhani v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4298 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Pradeep Vidhani had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 13th of April, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 11th of May, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 11th of May, 2021 on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 5th of June, 2021, which the Office of Appellate authority had received on the 7th of June. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information with respect to GIC Housing Finance Limited (company): 7(A). Annual Accounts for the years 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19, 2019-20, as submitted to the Department, along with all the information available with SEBI with respect to the company.  The respondent in response to query numbers 7(A) and 8, informed that in terms of SEBI (Listing Obligations and Disclosure Requirements) Regulations, 2015, listed companies are required to file reports, statements, documents and any other information with the recognized stock exchange(s), where it has listed its specified securities. The respondent also provided the links of the websites of the exchanges, for accessing such information. The appellant filed the appeal on the grounds that he was aggrieved by the response provided by the respondent and submitted that it is not clear from the response whether the requested information is available with the respondent while also alleging that the respondent is trying to benefit the concerned party in some way or the other. For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri (CIC/AT/A/2007/00112, order dated April 12, 2007) held that “….. unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be ‘held’ or ‘under the control of’ the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.” Similar observations were made by this forum in the matter of Nirali Mehta vs. CPIO, SEBI (October 15, 2018). The appellant authority found the claim of the appellate of the respondent trying to benefit the other party as baseless and unsubstantiated allegation which is not tenable.