BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2275 of 2015
Sumer Chandra Jain

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated September 11, 2015, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter
dated October 13, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal
dated October 23, 2015 (received at SEBI on October 26, 2015), 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 his
application wherein he had sought information regarding FIR No. Dt. & action, court case
No. & last hearing date, Current company address, Telephone, Fax & Email in respect of 10
companies named therein.

3.

In his response, the respondent informed the appellantthat the information sought by him
was not maintained by SEBI in the manner/format as specified. However, the respondent
advised the appellant to refer to the SEBI website i.e. www.sebi.gov.in for any
enforcement action taken by SEBI (link on the SEBI website: Orders & Rulings
Orders) and also for information related to prosecution details (link on the SEBI website:
http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListDept+yes&deptI
d+4).Further, the respondent informed the appellant that M/s Ladam Finance Limited
and Ladam Investment & Finance Co., did not fall within SEBIs purview in terms of
SEBI (Collective Investment Schemes) Regulations, 1999 and hence, no information
regarding the said companies was available with SEBI.

4.

In this appeal, the appellant while reiterating his request for information, has inter alia
submitted: From the reply it is clear that requested information is maintained by SEBI and is
available but (has been) denied

Page 1 of 2

5.1

In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellantthat the information
sought by him was not maintained by SEBI in the manner/format as specified. However,
I note that the respondent advised the appellant to refer to the SEBI website i.e.
www.sebi.gov.in for any enforcement action taken by SEBI (under the heading: Orders
& RulingsOrders) and for information regarding prosecution details (at
http://www.sebi.gov.in/sebiweb/home/HomeAction.do?doListDept+yes&dept
Id+4). Upon a consideration of the aforementioned, I find that the requisite information
as available with SEBI in respect of the appellant's application was provided by the
respondent. I, therefore, find no deficiency in the respondent's response to the
appellants application.

5.2

Without prejudice to the foregoing, I note that the respondent informed the appellant
that since M/s Ladam Finance Limited and Ladam Investment & Finance Co., did not
fall within SEBIs purview, no information regarding the said companies was available
with SEBI.I do not find any reason to disbelieve the response provided by the
respondent. In this context, I note that the Honble Supreme Court of India in the
matter of Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors.
(Judgment dated August 9, 2011), had inter alia held that: The RTI Act provides access to all
information that is available and existing. But where the information sought is not a part of the record
of a public authority, and where such information is not required to be maintained under any law or the
rules or regulations of the public authority, the Act does not cast an obligation upon the public authority,
to collect or collate such non-available information and then furnish it to an applicant.Further, I note
that the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision
dated July 8, 2013), had held that: if it (SEBI) does not have any such information in its
possession, the CPIO cannot obviously invent one for the benefit of the Appellant. There is simply no
information to be given. In view of these observations, I find that the information sought by
the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be
obliged to provide such nonavailable information.

6.

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

Place: Mumbai
Date: November 9, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Page 2 of 2