BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Appeal No. 2651 of 2017

Deepak Natang : Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant filed an application dated September 20, 2016, under the Right to
Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act). The respondent vide letter dated October 17, 2016,
responded to the appellant. The appellant filed this appeal dated February 18, 2017
(received at SEBI on February 25, 2017), 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. I note that under Section 19(1) of the RTI Act, an aggrieved person may prefer the first
appeal within thirty days from the receipt of the response from the Central Public
Information Officer (CPIO) of the concerned public authority. In the instant case, the
impugned response from the respondent is dated October 17, 2016. The appellant,
therefore, should have filed the first appeal by November 18, 2016, against the said
response. As noted above, the appellant has filed this first appeal on February 18, 2017
(received at SEBI on February 25, 2017). The first appeal has been made approximately 3
months after the last date permissible under the RTI Act. In this appeal, the appellant has
neither provided any explanation for the delay nor sought condonation of delay. In this
context, I note that the Honble CIC in Dr. A.K. Singh vs. Union Public Service Commission
(Order dated March 9, 2009), observed: This Commission has been considerate in condoning delays in
appeal in most cases. However, this is usually in response to a request for such condoning. In this case there
is no such request either before the first appellate authority or before us, only an explanation for the delay in
first appeal, which seeks to declare that having failed in court appellant took recourse to an appeal under
RTI. This reflects not any impediment but basicallylack of comprehension, even an affront to the law,
which can hardly be taken as a valid excuse For the above reasons this appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. In view of the aforesaid observations and in the absence of any reason that

Page 1 of 3

prevented the appellant from filing this first appeal in time, I consider this appeal as time
barred and hence, liable to be dismissed.

3. Without prejudice to the foregoing, from the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved
by the respondents response to queries 13 ofhis application.

4.1 Queries 13 of the appellants application In his response, the respondent inter alia
informed the appellant that the instant queries were in the nature of seeking
clarification/opinion and the same could not be construed as information as defined under
Section 2(f) of the RTI Act.

4.2 Inthis appeal, the appellant has reiteratedthe request for information contained in his
application.

4.3 Upon a perusal of the appellants request for information as made through queries 13 of
his application, I find the information sought therein was in the nature of seeking
clarification, opinion, etc. from SEBI. Further, I find that the appellant had not requested
for any information as defined under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 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), inter alia
held: "A public authority is ...not required to provide advice or opinion to an applicant, nor required
to obtain and furnish any opinion or advice to an applicant. The reference to opinion or advice in the
definition of information in section 2(f) of the Act, only refers to such material available in the records of
the public authority. Many public authorities have, as a public relation exercise, provided advice, guidance
and opinion to the citizens. But that is purely voluntary and should not be confused with any obligation
under the RTI Act. Further, in the matter of Shri Shantaram Walavalkar vs. CPIO, SEBI
(Decision dated January 17, 2013), I note that the Honble CIC held: ... we would also like to
observe that, under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, the citizen has the responsibility to specify the
exact information he wants; he is not supposed to seek any opinion or comments or clarifications or
interpretations from the CPIO. I note that the Honble CIC in the matter of Sh. Alok
Shukla vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated May 23, 2013), held: While dealing with RTI, we should
not forget that information means only an existing material record. The CPIO can provide the copy of the
available records; he cannot create new records in order to address specific queries of the Appellant. What
the Appellant wants here is clearly in the nature of seeking opinion and not information. Therefore, it is
not within the capacity of the CPIO to offer any such opinion or comment. In view of these
observations, I find that the respondent cannot be obliged to provide a response to such
request for information, as made by the appellant through queries 13 of his application.

Page 2 of 3

4.4 I note that the respondent also informed the appellant that on February 2, 2016, the
Honble Supreme Court of India appointed Honble Justice R M Lodha, former Chief
Justice of India, for disposing of the land purchased by PACL so that the sale proceeds
could be paid to the investors who invested their funds in the company for purchase of
land. I note that the respondent also advised the appellant to refer to the SEBI website
(www.sebi.gov.in) for Orders passed by SEBI against PACL and for any further
information relating to the matter. Upon a consideration of the aforementioned, I find that
the requisite information in respect of the appellants request for information had been
provided by the respondent. I, therefore, find no deficiency in the respondents response
to the appellants application.

5. 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: March 24, 2017 APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 3 of 3