Redressal of grievance not within ambit of RTI Act but up to appellant to approach correct forum: SEBI

Redressal of grievance not within ambit of RTI Act but up to appellant to approach correct forum: SEBI

The Appellate Authority (AA) of the SEBI noted that in a similar matter, the Supreme Court of India had held that where the information sought is not part of the record of a public authority, the RTI Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority to collect or collate such non-available information and furnish it to an applicant

SEBI reiterates that redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of RTI Act rather upto the Appellant to approach the correct forum

The appeal pertaining to the application filed by the appellant (Sambasivaw Raav) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) seeking information with respect to the status report on and action taken against 17 companies for failure to send annual reports and dividends; details regarding the application to be transferred; full postal address of all the companies, the grievance redressal mechanism along with some others has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority(AA) of the SEBI under the RTI Act.

The Respondent (CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai), in response to certain queries, provided the requested information and with respect to certain queries observed that the same were vague and not specific and accordingly couldn't be construed as "information", as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

It was also stated by the Respondent that the information sought with respect to the address of the listed companies, is available on the website of stock exchange. The respondent, also informed that the grievance redressal mechanism of the SEBI was available on the SEBI website.

The AA observed that the respondent, vide Annexure-I enclosed with the response, had provided the details with respect to the status of the company, SCORES registration number for non-receipt of dividend, status of the complaint etc., pertaining to each of the 17 companies, referred to in the application.

The AA also noted that no information, as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act, has been sought by the appellant. The AA also referred to the matter of Shri S. C. Sharma vs. the CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India wherein the Hon'ble CIC had held that since the Appellant had not clearly stated what exact information he wanted, the CPIO could not have provided any specific information to him. Therein, the Appellant was told that he might like to specify the exact information he wants from the SEBI and prefer a fresh application before the CPIO.

In view of these observations, the AA held that the respondent was not obliged to provide a response where the information sought was not clear and specific.

It was also opined by the AA that the appellant had sought the full postal address of the companies mentioned in his application and the respondent had appropriately advised the appellant that the information sought by the appellant, is available on the website of the stock exchanges.

In this regard, the AA noted that the Hon'ble CIC, in Shri K Lall vs. Shri M K Bagri, held that unless an information is exclusively held and controlled by a public authority, that information cannot be said to be an information accessible under the RTI Act. Inferentially it would mean that once a certain information is placed in the public domain accessible to the citizens either freely, or on payment of a pre-determined price, that information cannot be said to be 'held' or 'under the control of' the public authority and, thus would cease to be an information accessible under the RTI Act.

According to the AA, the respondent has provided the link to the SEBI website for accessing all enforcement actions taken by the SEBI, against various entities. It is understood that the SEBI conducts examination and investigation confidentially. However, post investigation, whenever violations are established, appropriate enforcement actions are taken under provisions of the SEBI Act, 1992 and Regulations framed thereunder, which culminate in the issuance of orders and the same are available on the SEBI website.

The AA also found no reason to disbelieve the observation that the details sought by the appellant, are not maintained by the SEBI in the normal course of regulation of securities market.

In this context, the AA noted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the Central Board of Secondary Education &Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors had held that where the information sought is not a part of the record of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority, to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.

Further, with respect to the action taken by SEBI, the AA noted that the respondent has adequately guided the appellant to access the information on the SEBI website.

With respect to the issue of the appellant having grievance regarding redressal of 8 complaints, the AA referred to the case of the Hon'ble CIC, in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow, wherein it was held that redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act and is rather up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum.