1. The appellant had filed an application dated August 8, 2013, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated August 22, 2013, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this appeal which was dated September 18, 2013 (received at SEBI on September 24, 2013), 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 her application, wherein it was stated as follows
i. In the matter of refund amount of 23400 with overdue interest from Sahara India Real Estate Corpn. Ltd., Lucknow, prolonged for more than 10 years now.
ii. Having exhausted normal avenues, complained to SEBI, New Delhi and Mumbai of 6th Nov '12. In- house verification was done by SEBI's New Delhi on 29 Nov '12.
iii. SEBI, Mumbai vide their letter dated 9th Jan '13 sent me an application for redemption (Format A &
B), No. 11145, Account No. 212392000253 for compliance.
iv. Completed form, bank's attestation, etc. was sent to SHCIL on 16th Jan '13. Thereafter, several reminders proved futile. No payment has been received, however.
v. Having satisfied, I had approached MCA, New Delhi and Registrar of Companies, UP, Kanpur who in turn took up the case with Saharas, under intimation to me.
vi. After a lapse of 6 months, I got an email dated 21 Jun '13 saying 'Complaint does not fall within their purview, approach appropriate forum'.
vii. Meanwhile, Sahara's local office here telephonically asked me to surrender 'Original Receipt' for making spot payment.
viii. On 2nd July '13, letter was sent to SEBI to return me the original receipt (see (iv) above). I request SEBI to return me all the papers immediately that sent vide my letter dated 16th Jan '13.
3. In his response, the respondent had informed the appellant that no information had been sought by her vide the abovementioned application. However, the appellant was informed that her request for return of original documents was being examined by SEBI. Further, a copy of the reply dated August 21, 2013, sent by the concerned department of SEBI, to the appellant, was annexed with the aforesaid response.
4. In this appeal, the appellant while reproducing the contents of her application, has submitted " Having frustrated, complaint under RTI was made of 8th Aug' 13 not for seeking information by for remedial measures. As per e-mail date 21 Aug'13 from SEBI saying "request under examination will revert in due course. I have not received the TWO ORIGINAL RECEIPTS so far The case I submitted is well within the ambit of RTI Act (and) can't be termed as "No information sought". I would fervently request you kindly favour me with the original receipts without any further delay".
5. On a perusal of the appellant's application, I find that the appellant had not sought information in terms of section 6(1) read with section 2(f) of the RTI Act. I note that despite the aforementioned, the appellant was informed by the respondent that her request for return of original documents was being examined by SEBI. Upon a consideration of the appellant's submission in this appeal in light of her application, it would appear that she has a grievance. In this context, I note that the Hon'ble CIC in the matter of Sh. Triveni Prasad Bahuguna vs. LIC of India, Lucknow (Decision dated September 6, 2012), had held that: "The Appellant is informed that redressal of grievance does not fall within the ambit of the RTI Act rather it is up to the Appellant to approach the correct grievance redressal forum". Further, in Mr. H. K. Bansal vs. CPIO & GM (OP), MTNL (Decision dated January 29, 2013), the Hon'ble CIC had held that: "The RTI Act is not the proper law for redressal of grievances/disputes and there are other appropriate forum(s) for resolving such matters." In view of these observations, I find that if the appellant has any grievance, the remedy for the same would not lie under the provisions of the RTI Act. For this purpose, the appellant is free to approach such forum that may have the power to address the grievance and not the authorities under the RTI Act.
6. 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 8, 2013 APPELLATE AUTHORITY SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA