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 Nitin Goel v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4377 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.
The appellant, Mr Nitin Goel had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 26th of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, received by the SEBI on the 9th of June, 2021. 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 29th of July, 2021.
The appellant, vide his application dated June 07, 2021, sought the following information regarding the following:
“A-1) Copy of procedure to be followed by DP to transfer the suspended Shares by “off Market Trade” to the willing buyer because the DP says that computer is not catching the suspended ISIN Number.
A-2) I ask about 2 companies whos ISIN No. are showing as suspended. Please supply copy of document to
- Off market transfer the another Demat account
- Close the Demat account as we are incurring maintenance charges on the account
- Re-materialise the shares and hold in physical form.”
The respondent, in response to query numbers A1 and A2, informed that the same are not clear and specific and are in the nature of seeking clarification. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as seeking “information”, as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. However, the respondent informed that the norms governing the Depository Participants (DPs) are stipulated in SEBI website under Regulations/Master Circulars. It was also informed that the same is available in the website of the respective Depositories. Further, the web-links for accessing the said SEBI Regulations/Master Circular was also provided.
On perusal of the application, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response provided by the respondent. The appellant, in his appeal, submitted that the requested information is not supplied. The appellant also alleged that the impugned order does not disclose the designation of the respondent.
On plain reading of query number A1, it was found that the same is vague and not clear. It was found that no information, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been sought by the appellant.