Page 1 of 2

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 1990 of 2014

Shahsikant Sitaram Junnarkar : Appellant
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated June 18, 2014, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated July 31,
2014, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated August 27, 2014,
against the said response. 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. From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to the
following query of his application having subject matter: "Complaint Registration No.
SEBIP/MH14/0002501/1", viz.

"Sir, enclosed herewith the copies of the action letters and reply, addressed by the Hon. Prime Minister of India
Office and also Hon. Additional Commissioner of Police, E. O. W. C. B. CID, Bombay You are requested
to furnish copy of complaint dated 26/5/2014 lodged with SEBI, as referred by you in the unsigned letter
addressed by the SEBI dated 26/5/2014."

3. In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: "The (respondent) has not followed Section II of
the RTI Act /contents of the Description of the information required and the provisions of the interest of
investor It is unfair to treat the complaint as meaningless "

4. In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellant that copy of complaint
bearing registration no. SEBIP/MH14/0002501/1, as sought by him, was his own complaint
dated February 25, 2014 (received by SEBI on April 25, 2014), which originated from him and
ought to be in his possession. In view of the aforesaid, the respondent informed the appellant
that since he was the original holder of the document, the same could not be said to be held or
under the control of SEBI and hence, did not qualify as 'information' under the provisions of
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Upon a consideration of the aforesaid response, I find that the
requisite information in respect of the appellant's request for information had been provided
by the respondent. I, therefore, find no deficiency in the respondent's response to the
appellant's application.
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 2 of 2


5. In view of the above, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the
respondent. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.



Place: Mumbai S. RAMAN
Date: September 26, 2014 APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA











Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz