ORDER
1. The appellant had filed an application dated December 27, 2023 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal) under the Right to Information Act, 2005("RTI Act"). The respondent, by a letter dated January 16, 2024 responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal (Reg. No. SEBIH/A/E/24/00012) dated January 31, 2024. 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. Requests in the application -The appellant, vide his application dated December 27, 2023, sought the following information:
"1. Information about the status of the investigation by Surveillance Department of BSE (Bombay Stock Exchange) on the communications dated 19-05-2017 filed by Omti Police Station, Jabalpur (Madhya Pradesh).
2. Action taken report submitted by BSE to SEBI on the said investigation.
3. Information about further instructions given to BSE by the said Omti Police Station"
3. Reply of the Respondent -The respondent in response to the application, informed that the information sought is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. Hence the same is not available with SEBI.
4. Ground of appeal- The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that information provided was incomplete, misleading or false information.
5. I have perused the application and the response thereto. I note that the respondent has categorically stated that the requested information is not available with SEBI. I note that the respondent can only
1
provide information that is available in the records. In this context, I note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Central Board of Secondary Education & Anr. vs. Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors (Judgment dated August 9, 2011) 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." Further, I note that the Hon'ble Central Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CIC") in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), held: "… 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 non- available information.
6. Further, the appellant in his appeal has inter alia submitted that the information sought may be provided to him as SEBI has the power to seek the same under Section 11C of SEBI Act, 1992. It appears that the appellant expects SEBI to collect and compile the said information for the appellant. In the context of power to seek information, I note that the Hon'ble CIC, in the matter of Shri P. Balachandar vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated March 29, 2012), had held that "The power vested in SEBI to call for any information from a recognised stock exchange is based on its satisfaction that it is in the interest of trade or public interest to do so. This does not give an unfettered power to the SEBI to call for information from any stock exchange on the request of a citizen under the Right to Information Act". Further, a similar view was adopted by the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Shri Narotam Dass Goel vs. CPIO, Securities and Exchange Board of India (Decision dated July 9, 2012). I find that the respondent is only expected to see that the information to be furnished to an applicant is the one which exists with the public authority when it receives an application under the RTI Act. The respondent has categorically stated in his response that the information sought was not available with SEBI. I am of the view that the respondent is not required to obtain such information not available with/held by SEBI, for the sole purpose of providing the same to an applicant under the RTI Act. Accordingly, I do not find any deficiency in the response of the respondent.
2
7. In view of the above observations, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Place: Mumbai B RAJENDRAN Date: February 7, 2024 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
3