Appellate authority found that the respondent is not obliged to provide a response where the information sought is vague and not specific.: SEBI.

Appeal No. 43421 BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY Under the Right to Information Act 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 43421 Aman Kumar CPIO SEBI Mumbai The appellant had filed an application dated June 24 2021under the Right to Information Act 2005 of symbol BANKNIFTY21MAR33500CE NIFTY BANK OPTION 33500 CE EXPIRY 25.03.2021 NATIONAL EXCAHNGE.” The respondent in response to the query 1 informed that the query is not clear and specific. Accordingly the same cannot be construes as “information” as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 4. Ground of appeal The appellant has filed an appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete misleading or false. The appellant has reiterated his query in the appeal. The appellant has also submitted that his query is clear. 5. Upon a perusal of the query I note that the same is vague. Further it is difficult to ascertain what exact 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 Appeal No. 43421 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 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. 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: July 16 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 Aman Kumar v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4349 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005. The appellant, Mr Aman Kumar had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 24th of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 15th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 15th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 18th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information: “Provide the list of traded quantity and price at time between 14:49 to 14:50 dated 25.03.2021 (total 1 minute) of symbol BANKNIFTY21MAR33500CE NIFTY BANK OPTION 33500 CE EXPIRY 25.03.2021 NATIONAL EXCAHNGE.” The respondent, in response to the query 1, informed that the query is not clear and specific. Accordingly, the same cannot be construes as “information”, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. The appellant has filed an appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false. The appellant has reiterated his query in the appeal. The appellant has also submitted that his query is clear. 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 appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.