Appellant has 8 queries regarding Karvy’s closure cum transfer application: SEBI, Part 2.
The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that the information provided was incomplete, misleading or false. The queries of the appellant and the response provided thereto, were discussed in the following paragraphs.
The respondent, in response to the query numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4, informed that the information sought is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market.
The appellant, in his appeal, inter alia, submitted that the turnover fees and other levies charged by the stock brokers must be maintained by the NSE/SEBI and hence it should be provided to the appellant.
On consideration, Appellate Authority did not find any reason to disbelieve the observation that the requested information is not maintained by SEBI in normal course of regulation of securities market. In this context, it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC in Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India (Order dated December 28, 2016).
It was held that “The Commission observes that the respondents can provide only that information which is existing and available with them and the RTI Act does not mandate it for the respondent authority to create information if it is not collected and collated in the normal course of their duties. The Commission, therefore, does not find any need to intervene in the matter. The appeal is disposed of.”
Further, it was noted that the Hon’ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Pattipati Rama Murthy vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision dated July 8, 2013), held: “… 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, it was found that the information sought by the appellant was not available with SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such non– available information.