“Further, the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the ……is a matter of grievance which cannot be adjudicated as far as mandate of RTI Act is concerned.”: SEBI, Part 1.

Exchange Board of India comprising of Mr. Amarjeet Singh adjudicated in the matter of Mayank Kumar Agarwal v CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai (Appeal No. 4363 of 2021) dealt with an issue in connection with Section 2 (f) of the Right to Information Act, 2005.

The appellant, Mr Mayank Kumar Agarwal had filed an application via RTI MIS Portal on the 4^th of June, 2021 under the Right to Information Act, 2005. The respondent responded to the application by a letter on the 22^nd of June, 2021, filed by the appellate. After receiving a letter from the respondent on 22^nd of June, 2021, on his application, the appellate decided to file an appeal on the 6^th of July, 2021.

The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false. On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the reply to the queries which have been categorized as seeking “clarification and not information”. In view of the submissions of the appellant, Appellate authority Mr Baiwar was only dealing with query numbers 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 in this appeal.

The appellant in his application was seeking the following information:

2. 2. Why the documents like KYC (which is the binding document for brokerage rate) submitted by the complainant as well as confirmation mail of brokerage rate agreed by the TM was not considered while closing my complaint?
4. 3. Why the ledger demanded by the complainant was not given by the TM?

4. Why my complaint was closed in spite of my repeated objection?

5. Why I was not given any chance to submit my documents and my point of view?

6. Why the matter was not referred to IGRP in spite of my repeated requests?

Click here to read the entire order.