Authority: Appellate Authority under the RTI Act, Securities and Exchange Board of India

Order Date: July 08, 2026

Case Overview

The appellant, Praveen Kumar, filed an application dated May 27, 2026, under the Right to Information Act, 2005, received by SEBI through the RTI MIS portal. The application pertained to Shares Bazaar Pvt Ltd and alleged that the company had collected money from investors by assuring returns while presenting itself as a SEBI-registered company. The appellant stated that the company had stopped payments to investors, was denying receiving payments despite transaction evidence, and that many investors had filed complaints with SEBI. The appellant referenced a specific SCORES Complaint No: SEBIM/TG26/HYDE/018161/1, for which a second-level review was requested on May 10, 2026, and was still pending. The application urged SEBI to inspect the company's office in Hyderabad, verify investor records and bank transactions, collect details of all affected investors and amounts, and take immediate regulatory and legal action.

The respondent, the CPIO at SEBI Mumbai, replied on June 15, 2026, stating that the information sought was in the nature of seeking action from SEBI and therefore could not be construed as "information" as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. Notwithstanding this, the respondent provided information on how to lodge and track a grievance on the SCORES portal.

The appellant filed an appeal (No. 6933 of 2026, Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00222) on June 16, 2026, on the ground that he was refused access to the requested information.

The Appellate Authority concurred with the CPIO's response, citing precedents from the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (CIC). The authority referenced the matter of Mohan Kumar Sharma vs. CPIO, Prime Minister's Office (order dated November 26, 2019), which held that a CPIO provides information available with them and cannot be expected to take action as desired by an appellant. It also referenced Mr. Surendra Vishwakarma vs. President Secretariat (Order dated April 29, 2016), which observed that the RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances and that other appropriate forums exist for such matters.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed. The Appellate Authority found no deficiency in the CPIO's response and concluded there was no need to interfere with the decision. The appellant's request for SEBI to investigate Shares Bazaar Pvt Ltd was not acted upon through the RTI mechanism.

Topics: RTI Act, Investor Protection, Regulatory Jurisdiction