Further, information was provided regarding approval of adjudication proceedings in the matter of Varun Global Ltd. the appellant was informed that any further regulatory action, if taken by SEBI in the said matter, will be published on the SEBI website. Additionally, the respondent also stated that the above status has been informed to the appellant in reply to all the complaints filed by the appellant since 2020. A copy of the ATR pertaining to complaint number SEBIE/MH20/00….68/1 was also provided to the appellant.
The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. The appellant, in his appeal, alleged that his SCORES account has been blocked and that the ATRs cannot be accessed.
It was noted that the appellant has sought all ATRs regarding complaints filed by him against Varun Shipping Ltd (Inc.Varun Global/Resources) from December 2015 to date. The appellant also specifically sought the ATR to complaint number SEBIE/MH20/00….68/1. On consideration, Mr Baiwar found that neither the application nor the submissions made in the appeal clearly specify the exact details of the complaints in respect of which the ATRs were sought (except the one specifically provided by the appellant).
He also found that the request is vague for want of precision on the exact nature of details requested, complaint registration number, the relevant period during which the complaints were lodged in SCORES etc. In this regard, the Hon’ble CIC in Ms. Sarika Jain vs National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Limited held that “As regards the first part i.e. copies of all documents in relation to the contracts mentioned in the RTI application, the Commission finds that the term “all” used by the Appellant here is very vague and does not pin point the particular document she wants to obtain from the Respondents. The Appellant is, therefore, advised to be more specific and identify the documents she wants to obtain from the Respondents …” The request of the appellant is similarly vague in nature and hence the aforesaid observations shall become applicable to it. Mr Baiwar found that the respondent is not obliged to provide information where the query is vague and not specific.