BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2133 of 2015
Sandeep Jalan

Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated February 9, 2015, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated March 11,
2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated April 13, 2015
(received at SEBI on April 15, 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 having subject matter: "My complaint on behalf of Mrs. Laxmi Girish Jalan dated
20.02.2014."

3.

Query at point no. (a) of the appellant's application In this appeal, the appellant has inter
alia submitted: "I have not asked for Online procedure which is followed by SEBI in dealing with complaints
received by SEBI; I was asking for procedure which is followed by SEBI when a complaint is received by it, in
physical form."

4.

In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellant that SEBI had launched a
new web based centralized grievance redress system called SEBI Complaints Redress System
(SCORES), which enable investors to lodge their complaint at http://scores.gov.in. Further, I
note that the respondent informed the appellant that SCORES would enable investors to
lodge and follow up their complaints and track the status of redressal of such complaints
online. Upon a consideration of the aforesaid response, I find no deficiency in the
respondent's response to the appellant's request for information.

5.

Queries at point nos. (b) (e) of the appellant's application In this appeal, the appellant
has inter alia submitted: "I must know what happened to my complaint."

6.

In his response, I note that the respondent inter alia informed the appellant that the
information sought by him 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
Page 1 of 2

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

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.
7.

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

Place: Mumbai
Date: April 23, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz