BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY (Under the Right to Information Act, 2005) SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Appeal No. 1502 of 2012 D. D. Mahajan : Appellant Vs. CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent ORDER 1. The appellant had filed an application dated June 7, 2012 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent vide letter dated July 5, 2012, responded to the appellant. Aggrieved by the respondent's response, the appellant has filed this appeal dated July 26, 2012. 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 appellant's application, I note that he and his family had made investments in 4 plantation companies viz. Greenworld Resorts Ltd, Timberworld Resorts and Plantations India Ltd, Anubhav Plantations Ltd and Perutek Services Ltd. I note that the appellant had sought information regarding these 4 companies stating "Under RTI, I want to know which of the above company has made the refund and when and why I and my family have not got any refund". 3. In his response, the respondent had informed the appellant that the information in respect of refund to investors by the companies viz. M/s Greenworld Resorts Ltd., M/s Timberworld Resorts and Plantations Ltd. and M/s Perutek Services Ltd, was not available with the concerned department of SEBI. In the matter of M/s Anubhav Plantations Ltd, the appellant was informed that the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai has appointed Shri M. Ravindran as the Official Liquidator and he was advised to approach the Liquidator for matters related to refund of money from the said company. To the appellant's query regarding why his family and him have any got any refund, the respondent had informed the appellant that the information sought was in the nature of seeking reason from SEBI and hence, the same cannot be construed as information as defined under section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 4. In this appeal, the appellant has contended that it was only the respondent who can give information regarding refund by the companies viz. M/s Greenworld Resorts Ltd., M/s Timberworld Resorts and Plantations Ltd. and M/s Perutek Services Ltd, since it was SEBI who was dealing with the cases after receiving the appellant's and his family's investment information in July 2000. In this context, I note that the appellant has raised queries stating "please let me know whether these companies have been liquidated. If yes, who are the official liquidator whom Page 1 of 2 to approach for the payments with their complete address". Further, I note that as regards M/s Anubhav Plantations Ltd, the appellant has submitted that the respondent has "given only the name of the Official Liquidator without his address where I could contact him for our payments". 5. I note that the appellant has raised the abovementioned queries for the first time at this appeal stage. In the matter of, Anil K. Sahore vs. CPIO, Coast Guard Headquarters (Order dated July 13, 2006), the Hon’ble CIC held that a request at the first appeal, which is different from what the appellant raised with the respondent, is impermissible. I therefore find that this appeal is liable to be rejected for this reason alone. 6. Without prejudice to the foregoing, I note that the appellant was clearly informed by the respondent that the information sought by him regarding refund to investors by the companies viz. M/s Greenworld Resorts Ltd., M/s Timberworld Resorts and Plantations Ltd. and M/s Perutek Services Ltd was not available with SEBI. I do not find any reason to disbelieve the respondent. I note that the Hon’ble 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 that the RTI Act provides access to all information that is available and existing. In view of these observations, I find that the the obligation of the respondent under the RTI Act is to provide information identifiable and available in the records of SEBI. In this case, I find that the information sought by the appellant in his application was not available with SEBI and therefore, the respondent cannot be obliged to provide such information. 7. I note that as regards M/s Anubhav Plantations Ltd, the respondent had informed the appellant that the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai has appointed Shri M. Ravindran as the Official Liquidator and had advised him to approach the Liquidator for matters related to refund of money from the said company. In this appeal, I find that the appellant has raised a query on the information provided by the respondent and has sought new/fresh information i.e. address of the Official Liquidator, in respect of the same. I find that such request for new/fresh information cannot be entertained at the appellate stage as discussed at paragraph 4 above. I, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the decision of the respondent. 8. In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Place: Mumbai PRASHANT SARAN Date: August 21, 2012 APPELLATE AUTHORITY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA Page 2 of 2 .