Page 1 of 2
BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 6267 of 2025
Prerit Kailash Misra
:
Appellant Vs
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent
ORDER
1. The appellant had filed an application dated December 06, 2024 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 ("RTI Act"). The respondent, by a letter dated December 27, 2024, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/24/00303) dated December 27, 2024. I have carefully considered the application, the response and the appeal and find that the matter can be decided based on the material available on record.
2. Ground of appeal - The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that he was refused access to the information requested.
3. Query in the application - The appellant, in his application dated December 06, 2024, sought the following information:
" Further to SEBIs Meeting with the said Company (SEBIs own Statement regarding the same). Which SEBI Officials attended the Meeting."
4. Reply of the Respondent - The respondent, in response to the application, informed that appellant's query is vague and not specific. Accordingly, the same cannot be construed as "information", as defined u/s 2(f) of the RTI Act.
5. I have perused the application and the response provided thereto. On consideration, I concur with the response of the respondent that the appellant's query is vague and not specific. It is an established law
Page 2 of 2
that the information sought for in order to be disclosable under the RTI Act, must be clear, specific and available in the records of the public authority. In this context, I note that in the matter of Mr. T. V. Sundaresan vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated November 24, 2021), the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CIC") held: "The framework of the RTI Act, 2005 expects that the information sought is specific and believed to be existing with the public authority in documented or material form as such; which can be shared with the appellant as per the provisions of the RTI Act. Answering to broad, multiple and general queries and presumptive documents that should have been generated as per the expectation of the appellant cannot be furnished under the provisions of the Act." Accordingly, I do not find any deficiency in the response.
6. I, further, note that similar requests were sought by the appellant in his earlier RTI applications (Reg. no. SEBIH/R/E/24/01434 dated November 20, 2024, Reg. no. SEBIH/R/E/24/01290 dated October 10, 2024, Reg. no. SEBIH/R/E/24/01077 dated August 30, 2024, Reg. no. SEBIH/R/E/24/00937 dated August 02, 2024). The aforementioned requests were also denied by the respondent vide his replies dated December 05, 2024, October 21, 2024, September 10, 2024 and August 09, 2024 respectively, for being vague. Further, FAA orders dated December 30, 2024, November 19, 2024, October 08, 2024 and August 29, 2024 were also passed with respect to the earlier RTI applications. Therefore, I find the appellant's appeals to be repetitive in nature.
7. In view of the above observations, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Place: Mumbai RUCHI CHOJER Date: January 20, 2025 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Comments