Page 1 of 3

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 1993 of 2014

Avinash Chander Prabhakar : Appellant
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated July 9, 2014, under the Right to Information Act,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated August 7, 2014,
responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated August 30, 2014 (received
at SEBI on September 4, 2014), 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 query of his application, viz.

"Copies of Entire Correspondence with Appellant & Indus Portfolio Pvt. Ltd. ("Indus") or any other
authority and reports prepared regarding meeting held at SEBI NRO Office New Delhi on Thursday, January
30, 2014 and if any action taken on the issue regarding suspension of Trading Account of Avinash Chander
Prabhakar by Indus Portfolio Pvt. Ltd."

3. In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: "The (respondent) has not supplied complete
information. As (regards) the demand of copies of entire correspondence in the record of SEBI entered into by
the applicant & vice versa and likewise the correspondence entered into between SEBI & Indus regarding
appellate issue or any other authority on the issue by SEBI were demanded as against this information
regarding copies of correspondence with the appellant has been denied against law. The (respondent) has
denied the information regarding a meeting held by Assistant General Manager, Chandigarh Local Office at
New Delhi at SEBI NRO on January 30, 2014. The petitioner by taking information wants no invasion
on the privacy of the individual It is wrong and unbelievable to say that the information regarding meeting
held on January 30, 2014, was not available"

4. In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellant that the information sought
in respect of correspondence made by him with SEBI, was already held by the appellant. As
regards the information in respect of correspondences made by Indus with SEBI vide emails
dated February 3, 2014 and March 10, 2014, I note that the same was provided by the
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 2 of 3

respondent to the appellant after severing the name of SEBI officials in accordance with
Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. Further, I note that the appellant was advised that
as the complaint filed by him was processed electronically on SEBI Complaints Redress
System (SCORES), details/status of the same could be viewed on the SCORES website. Upon
a consideration of the aforesaid response, I find that the requisite information in respect of the
appellant's request for information had been provided by the respondent. I, therefore, find no
deficiency in the respondent's response to the appellant's application.

5. Without prejudice to the foregoing, as regards the non-disclosure of information relating to
the name, etc. of SEBI official(s), I find that a similar issue was settled by the Honble CIC in
the matter of Shri V. Raj vs. Dr. G. Narayana Raju (Decision dated August 22, 2007), wherein it
had ruled that: "... a public servant contributing to a decision is entitled to his anonymity". Similarly, in the
matter of Shri Gurbax Singh vs. Shri Vijay Kumar (Decision dated September 25, 2007), the Hon'ble
CIC had held that: " it is a well founded assumption that employees who contribute to a given decision
should remain anonymous and at least in the higher echelons of administration in the parliamentary set up,
anonymity of civil servants sub serves the key element of the system - the ministerial responsibility to the
Legislature". In H. E. Rajashekarappa vs. State Public Information Officer and Ors., the Honble High
Court of Karnataka had ruled that: "... it cannot be said that section 2(f) of the Act (the RTI Act)
encompasses the personal information of the officials of the public authority. The intention of the legislation is to
provide right to information to a citizen pertaining to public affairs of the public authority". I note that the
aforementioned decisions have been followed by the Appellate Authority of SEBI in many
cases including Ajay M. Marathe vs. CPIO, SEBI (Appeal No. 691 of 2009 Order dated November
18, 2009), for concluding that the disclosure of information relating to the name, etc. of SEBI
official(s), is exempt under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. In view of these
observations, I find no deficiency in the respondent's response to the appellant's application.

6. As regards the information sought by the appellant in respect of Reports prepared by SEBI
regarding meeting held on January 30, 2014, I note that the respondent informed him that the
said information 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
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 3 of 3

not available with the concerned department of SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be
obliged to provide such non-available information.

7. 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 S. RAMAN
Date: October 1, 2014 APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz