Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Anand Baiwar adjudicated in the matter of Vinod Kumar Agarwal v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4369 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appellant, Mr Vinod Kumar Agarwal had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 1st of July, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 19th of July, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 19th of July, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 21st of July, 2021.
The appellant, vide his application dated 1st of July, 2021, inter alia, sought the information regarding how much MFs (AMC wise) gained over last 20 Years due to the exit load levied in accordance with SEBI order (MFD/CIR/08/514 of 2002) and how they have utilized it.
The respondent, in response to the query, informed that the information sought by the appellant with regard to exit load charged by Asset Management Companies (AMCs) in various mutual fund schemes, is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. Hence the same is not available with SEBI.
The appellant had filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false. The appellant, in his appeal, alleged incorrect levy of exit load. Further, the appellant has also submitted that SEBI should compile the details and forward the same to the appellant.
After having perused through the application and the response provided thereto. On consideration, it was found that any reason to disbelieve the observation that the requested information is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market.
In this context, Mr Baiwar noted that the Hon’ble CIC did not find any need to intervene in the matter of Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Order dated December 28, 2016) while observing that “10.…… the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties. The Commission, therefore, does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.”