Page 1 of 2

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

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

Appeal No. 1995 of 2014

Hira Devi Choudhary : Appellant
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated August 25, 2014, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated August 27,
2014, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated September 5, 2014
(received at the Office of the Appellate Authority on September 8, 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. In this appeal, the appellant has made a request for a personal hearing in the matter. In this
regard, I note that as per the RTI Act, there is no such obligation on the part of the First
Appellate Authority to give disposal after giving hearing, as was held by the Honble CIC in
the matter of Mr. Milind Hemant Kotak, Mumbai vs. Canara Bank (Decision dated April 24, 2008).

3. From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to the
following query of her application having subject matter: "Shareholders List of Essar Oil Limited
("EOL")", viz.

"In this connection, please obtain following information from DATAMATICS FINANCIAL
SERVICES LTD. registrar and transfer agents of EOL falling under SEBI's regulatory domain.
Shareholders List as at close of business on 22.08.14 of EOL."

4. In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: "As I am aggrieved and dissatisfied with
(respondent's) decision and citing reason, which is against the RTI Act preamble and provision and it is duty of
SEBI to provide under the Section 2(f) of RTI Act 2005 otherwise this will be more than ragging and
victimization in Nexus when my RTI Application already stated the reason and asking same from SEBI."

5. In his response, I note that the respondent informed the appellant that as the information
sought by her was not maintained by SEBI in the normal course of regulation of securities
market, the same was not available with 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
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 2 of 2

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 SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such non-available
information.

6. 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: September 30, 2014 APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA




Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz