Appellant Authority agreed with the observation of the respondent that no information was sought by the appellant through the instant application.: SEBI
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 Vignesh Reddy Angadi v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4327 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appellant, Mr Vignesh Reddy Angadi had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 6th of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 11th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 16th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 11th of June, 2021. In his application, the appellate was seeking the following information:
“An arbitration case NSEHRO/……..ISC/ARB is filed on the transactions carried out by the Kotak Mahindra Bank. FORM1 along with statement letter and annexures completed and signed is attached. Kindly accept the soft copies as hard copies could not be sent across owing to the present pandemic situation and restrictions due to lockdown. Kindly do the needful.”
The respondent, in response to the query said that no information was sought. The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information requested was refused. The appellant, in his appeal, inter alia, sought reason for rejection of appeal in an arbitration case filed by the appellant.
On perusal of the application, it is not clear as to what exact information is sought by the appellant. The appellant has simply made a statement regarding filing of an arbitration case. Appellant Authority agreed with the observation of the respondent that no information was sought by the appellant through the instant application and accordingly found no deficiency in the response.
For the queries, the appellate authority, Mr Anand Baiwar, made reference to the matter of Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Harish Prasad Divedi vs. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited (decided on January 28, 2014), an information seeker cannot be allowed to expand the scope of his RTI enquiry at appeal stage. In view of these observations, the appellate authority found no deficiency in the response.
In view of the above-made observations, the Appeal was accordingly dismissed since the appellate authority found that there was no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent.