1. The appellant had filed an application dated September 08, 2021 (received by the respondent through RTI MIS Portal) under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated September 28, 2021, responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated December 06, 2021, against the said response dated September 28, 2021.

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 CPIO of the concerned public authority. In the instant case, the response from the respondent is dated September 28, 2021. The appellant, therefore, should have filed the first appeal on or before expiry of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said response. As noted above, the appellant has filed this first appeal on December 06, 2021. The first appeal has been made after the last date permissible under the RTI Act. In this appeal, the appellant has neither requested for condonation of delay nor made any submission regarding the reason for the delay. In the absence of any reason that prevented the appellant from filing the first appeal in time, I consider this appeal as time barred and hence, liable to be dismissed.

3. Notwithstanding the above observation, I consider the appeal on merit. 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.

4. Queries in the application –The appellant, vide his application dated September 08, 2021, sought the following information:

“1. Present status of Unit certificate no. T01…..12 Regd. Folio No. T0…78 Distinct No. 17…01 to 17…..00 in the name of Rajesh Kumar Gupta issued by Dhan Vikas 1 Scheme of LIC mutual Fund on dated 15 April 1993.

2. Date of redemption of units with amount of redemption and account or mode of payment made to beneficiary.

3. Procedure to claim the amount of the scheme.”

5. The respondent, in response to the aforesaid queries, informed that the information sought by the appellant is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI in the normal course of regulation of securities market. However, the appellant was advised to approach the respective mutual fund in this regard.

6. Ground of appeal- The appellant has filed the appeal on the ground that access to the requested information was refused. The appellant, in his appeal, inter alia, referred to Section 2(f) of the RTI Act and requested to instruct the respondent to provide the information.

7. I have perused the query and the response provided thereto. On consideration, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the observation of the respondent that the requested information is not available with SEBI as the same is not maintained by SEBI. In this context, I note that the Hon’ble CIC, in the matter of Mrigesh Manubhai Thakkar vs. SEBI (order dated December 28, 2016) observed 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, I note 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, I do not find any deficiency in the response.

8. In view of the above observations, I find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed.