BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY
(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 1624 of 2013
Ganesh Lal Nag
:
Appellant
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai
:
Respondent
ORDER
1.
The appellant had filed 2 applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as "RTI Act") on a similar subject matter, one before the Ministry of Finance,
Government of India, which was dated November 15, 2012 (transferred to the respondent by
that public authority) and another application before the respondent, which was dated
December 27, 2012. The respondent vide letters dated January 22, 2013, responded to the
appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated January 30, 2013 (received at SEBI on
February 11, 2013), against the said responses. 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 queries of his applications having subject matter: "Non-payment of redemption fund by
Reliance Mutual Fund under Folio No. 49948958982 and misappropriation of redemption fund", viz. i.
ii.
iii.
"Under Reliance MF No. 49948958982, when and how did the units balance become nil?
What are the reasons behind non-payment of the amount invested in the aforesaid folio? If the payment has
been made, when has it been made?
Please provide certified copy of letters (received by the appellant from Reliance Mutual Fund, Karvy
Computer Share Pvt. Ltd.)"
3.
In response to the abovementioned queries, I note that the respondent had informed the
appellant that since the information sought was not maintained by SEBI in the normal course
of regulation and supervision of the securities market, the same was not available. However,
the appellant was informed that the matter as referred to by him in his applications had been
taken up as complaint(s) by SEBI and would be processed accordingly.
4.
In this appeal, the appellant while referring to the respondent's response regarding the matter
as referred to in his applications being taken up as complaint(s), has submitted that the
respondent does not take any action for redressal of investors' grievances as he is not serious
Page 1 of 2
towards such grievances. Further, the appellant has submitted that the respondent had not
issued any letter/direction to Reliance Mutual Fund in order to obtain the information as
sought by him through the queries at para 2 supra. The appellant has also submitted that the
respondent had not provided the certified copy of letters requested by him.
5.
I note that the appellant was clearly informed by the respondent that the information as
requested by him, was not available since the same was not maintained by SEBI in the normal
course of regulation and supervision of the securities market. I do not find any reason to
disbelieve the response provided by the respondent. I note that the Hon’ble 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. This is clear from a combined reading of section 3 and the definitions of
‘information’ and ‘right to information’ under clauses (f) and (j) of section 2 of the Act. If a public authority
has any information in the form of data or analysed data, or abstracts, or statistics, an applicant may access
such information, subject to the exemptions in section 8 of the Act. 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”. In view of
these observations, I find that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide the information
sought by the appellant, in his application, as such information was not maintained by SEBI in
the normal course of regulation and supervision of the securities market and therefore, was not
available.
6.
Without prejudice to the foregoing, I note that the respondent had informed the appellant that
the matter as referred to in his applications, had been taken up as complaint(s) by SEBI and
would be processed accordingly. In this context and having regard to the facts involved in the
instant appeal, I direct the respondent to provide the appellant with information relating to the
present status of such complaint(s), in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act read
with the Right to Information Rules, 2012, within 15 working days from the date of receipt of
this order.
7.
The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Place: Mumbai
Date: March 12, 2013
S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Page 2 of 2