“Respondent provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters related to securities market.”: SEBI, Part 1.
The appellate authority under the RTI (Right to Information) Act of the Securities and Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Amarjeet Singh adjudicated in the matter of Anang Manubhai Shah v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4364 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appellant, Mr Anang Manubhai Shah had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 19th of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 28th of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 28th of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 9th of July, 2021.
In his application the appellant was seeking the following information regarding Karvy’s closure cum transfer application:
“I have sent the following email with all the relevant attachments to [email protected] When do we expect the NSDL to transfer the shares from Karvy to J M Financial account?”
The respondent, in response to the query, informed that the same is in the nature of seeking clarification/grievance. It was further informed that taking action or resolution of grievance does not come under the provisions of the RTI Act. The respondent observed that the query does not qualify as “information” under provisions of Section 2(f) of RTI Act.
The respondent also provided information regarding lodging and tracking the status of complaints online. Further, the respondent also provided the toll free helpline numbers launched by SEBI to facilitate replies to various queries of the general public on matters related to securities market. In addition to the same, the appellant was also advised to refer to FAQs available on the SEBI website.
The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. The appellant, in his appeal, inter alia, submitted that he had sought the timeline for getting money back into his account after filing the closure form.