BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2098 of 2015
B Hema Sri

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated December 29, 2014, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated
January 19, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated
February 10, 2015 (received at SEBI on February 13, 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 the
following queries of her application regarding M/s Farmax India Limited (Formerly Bhagyanagar
Castings Ltd.).

3.

In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: "Kindly look into this and pl. verify the
department which would receive this information from the company since we are not aware of the type of indoor
management of your organization"

4.

In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellant that the information sought
by her was not available with the concerned department of 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 the concerned department of SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be
obliged to provide such nonavailable information.

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Page 1 of 2

5.

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

Place: Mumbai
Date: March 16, 2015

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2