“The respondents urged during the heaving that they had requested she appellant to come-over to inspect the documents refered by him, bat be {Biled to tureup They have expressed thir inability 10 idemtfy this information Scns onthe particulars furnished by the appellant Decision fier of th eapomcss io allow inspection of fies m the appa is 2 Ger one The appetiem ctouit Se ao mtsh, approach the eepondents, ‘ween one week fem She dre of the meet of ths ender, expressing Bs ‘wctingaess 10 inspect the records Gee Wathin ne week of te expt of ‘he appellant's request ie CPIO wid ge Ke = ine and date on which Iie could cary-out the inspeccon wm Wensiied premise: He sall also be allowed to tke extocs copies of eck of he inspected cords as be may Seer" 321. Without vsling the reasonable oppurtusiy of ipeting this the epeliat is scking seme infomation by reframing the questions. Further the provisions ‘of RTT Act cannot be missed by filing repeated plications for aloe sinilee issues eepevially whoa ther iso publi interest. The appellant ray seck specific information about particular mater aber than making vavious queries which re in the nature of opinion and hypetercal questions. As observed by Hon'ble CIC ‘vide its onder dated February 21,2007 inthe appeal filed by the appellant (Appeal No, CICIATIA/2006/00575 - SK Kapoor Vs CPIO, SEBI & Am). itis wt open to the appellant to sed te public autberity on a wild goose ease onthe has of hypothetical scenarios corjured up by him. 3.22 The appeal is disposed off with the directions stated inthe paragraphs nos 3.2. 3111 and 3.12 stove and the document as diected to famish to the appellant be provided within 21 working days fiom the date of receipt of this Order, after taking requisite fees as pe the provisions of RTI Act ee ‘Place: Murnbai vy PRA Date: July 20,2007 APPELLATE. [SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA age 9 of