Page 1 of 3

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

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

Appeal No. 1992 of 2014

R. Sasitharan : Appellant
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated June 28, 2014, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated July 11,
2014, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal dated August 28, 2014
(received at SEBI on September 3, 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. From the appeal, I note that the appellant is aggrieved by the respondent's response to the
following queries of his application, viz.

"A Public Sector Bank in India acted as a Debenture Trustee for a Public Limited Company for the
Debentures issued by them in 1989, which was subscribed partly by another PSU Bank and general public.
Debenture Trustee Bank was not a subscriber to the Debentures.
i. Whether the PSU Bank who acted as Debenture Trustee alone without subscribing for the Debentures can
approach the Debt Recovery Tribunal for recovering the Debenture dues of the Debenture holders under the
Recovery of Debts Due to Bank Act, 1993 (RDDB Act), in the event of default by company to the
debenture holders. If the answer is No, kindly provide certified copy of relevant guideline in this regard.
ii. The PSU bank who acted as Debenture Trustee can file application for recovery of Bank Loan dues before
DRT, under RDDB Act and the other PSU Bank who has subscribed to nearly 25% of the Debentures
can also approach the DRT for recovering the dues to their Bank under the Debentures subscribed to them.
The balance 75% subscribed by General Public. In a situation of this kind whether the Debenture Trustee
Bank can approach DRT for recovery of the Debenture dues, due to the holders of Debentures under
RDDB Act. If the answer is No, certified copy of relevant guideline in this regard.
iii. Details/certified copies of relevant provision existing as on date, available to the Debenture Trustee Bank,
to recover the Debenture dues.
iv. Whether the Debenture Trustee Bank can invoke the provisions of SARFAESI Act and initiate Recovery
proceedings for sale of properties given as security to recover the Debenture dues due to the holders of
Debentures.
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 2 of 3

v. A news item appeared in Indian Express dated 20.04.2014 'Empowering Debenture Trustees Govt. to
seek A. G. advice.' A copy of the same is enclosed for ready reference. Kindly provide me a copy of the letter
dated 03.12.2014, written by Chairman, SEBI, to Finance Ministry for amending the Acts to empower
the Debenture Trustees as mentioned in the above news.
vi. As per the existing laws, which Court/Tribunal has to be approached by the Debenture Trustee PSU
Bank for recovering more than 5 Crores due by selling the mortgaged properties kept as security with the
Debenture Trustees Bank.
vii. FAQs released by SEBI question No. 8 Whether this law still holds good or any Amendment has
taken place enabling Debenture Trustee Bank to approach DRT to recover Debenture dues due to the
holders under the RDDB Act. If any amendment is made a copy of the same may be provided."

3. Queries at point nos. 2(i)(iv), (vi)(vii) above In his response, the respondent informed
the appellant that the information sought was in the nature of seeking explanation. Further,
the respondent informed the appellant that the right to information under the RTI Act could
not be converted into a legal right to inquisition and also did not envisage a situation of a
public authority being called upon to explain the reasons invoking the provisions of the RTI
Act; hence, the same could not be construed as 'information' under Section 2(f) of that Act.
However, the respondent advised the appellant to refer to the SEBI website i.e.
www.sebi.gov.in under the head: Legal Framework and also the SEBI (Debenture Trustee)
Regulations, 1993.

4. In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: " observations of the (respondent) is not
factually correct and the applicant reiterates that the applicant has only requested for information available with
SEBI"

5. Upon a perusal of the appellant's request for information as made through the instant queries
of his application, I find the information sought by him was in the nature of seeking
clarification, opinion, explanation, 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), had inter alia
held that: 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 Hon'ble CIC had held that: ... 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 Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Alok Shukla vs. CPIO, SEBI (Decision
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 3 of 3

dated May 23, 2013), had held that: 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 the instant queries of his application.

6. Query at point no. 2(v) above In his response, the respondent informed the appellant that
the letter under reference in the article was dated December 3, 2012 and not December 3,
2014. Further, the respondent informed the appellant that the disclosure of the aforesaid letter
was exempted under Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act, as the information was
strategic in nature and was also in the nature of commercial confidence, disclosure of which
may impact the strategic decision making of the regulator.

7. In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia submitted: "I wish to submit that I am entitled to get copy of
letter dated 03.12.2012 under the provisions of the RTI Act A mere perusal of the exempt clauses claimed
by the (respondent) will prove that the same is not applicable for the copy of the letter sought for "

8. I note that the letter dated December 3, 2012, may contain information of a strategic nature
concerning regulatory policy formulation by SEBI in respect of the securities market and may
therefore, have an impact on the regulation of concerned/related market participants, etc.
Further, I note that any information relating to the formulation of such regulatory policy may
also entail an evaluation of various views submitted by concerned/related market participants,
etc. which were intended to be confidential on account of the commercial/trade related aspect
involved. Therefore, information of such nature cannot be supplied obliquely through
disclosure of the letter dated December 3, 2012, as requested by the appellant in his
application. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the information requested by the appellant
(through the instant query) is exempt from disclosure in accordance with the provisions of
Sections 8(1)(a) and 8(1)(d) of the RTI Act.

9. 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: October 1, 2014 APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz