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

Order Date: September 09, 2026

Case Overview

The appeal was filed by Surajit Rout against the CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai regarding an RTI application dated June 11, 2026. The appellant sought certified copies of documents related to Complaint No. SEBIE/WB26/EAST/017375/1, specifically: (1) complete Action Taken Report (ATR) with all annexures and documents received from Bigshare Services Pvt. Ltd., NSE, Angel One Ltd., Evonith Value Steel Ltd./Uttam Value Steels Ltd., Designated Body, or any other concerned entity; (2) scrutiny reports, examination notes, review notes, file notings, internal recommendations, observations, and final reports prepared for the Adjudicating Officer/SEBI; and (3) final decision/order documents along with all records relied upon, including those pertaining to share extinguishment, payment details, settlement, cash mobilization, escrow arrangements, bank transfer details, or shareholder compensation mechanisms for the appellant's holding of 4230 shares of Uttam Value Steels Ltd. (ISIN: INE292A01023).

The respondent (CPIO, SEBI) had responded on July 10, 2026, informing that the status and ATR of the complaint could be accessed by the appellant through the SCORES portal and had enclosed a copy of the ATR with the response. The appellant filed this appeal on August 11, 2026 (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/26/00304) on the ground that he was refused access to the requested information.

The Appellate Authority examined the application, response, and appeal, noting that the respondent had adequately addressed the query by informing about SCORES portal access and providing the ATR. The authority referenced the Delhi High Court's decision in Narendra Tyagi vs. Assistant Director (CPIO) (dated December 06, 2023), which held that disputes regarding the correctness of information provided under RTI cannot be adjudicated in RTI proceedings, as the CPIO is only required to supply accessible information.

Final Outcome

The appeal was dismissed, with the Appellate Authority finding no deficiency in the respondent's response and no need to interfere with the decision. The appellant's challenge to the correctness of the response was deemed outside the scope of RTI proceedings.

Topics: RTI Appeal, SEBI Compliance, Investor Complaint