BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

(Under the Right to Information Act, 2005)

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA
Appeal No. 2123 of 2015
Ms. Parvati Devi
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai

Vs.

:
:

Appellant
Respondent

ORDER
1.

The appellant had filed an application dated January 24, 2015, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"), before the Central Assistant Public
Information Officer (hereinafter referred to as "CAPIO") at SEBI Lucknow Local Office. The
respondent vide letter dated March 3, 2015, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed
this appeal dated March 18, 2015 (received at SEBI on March 23, 2015), 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 regarding Sahara India Commercial Corporation Ltd. (SICCL).

3.

In his response, the respondent informed the appellant that the matter of SICCL was under
examination and was yet to reach a logical conclusion; therefore, disclosure of details related to
the matter may impede the process and was therefore exempt from disclosure in terms of
Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act.

4.

In this appeal, the appellant has inter alia neither any refund has been made nor any information has been
provided to her. The appellant has reiterated her request for information and has also requested for suitable
action against the respondent for not providing information even after the lapse of time limit.

5.

As regards the appellant's request for suitable action against the respondent for not providing information
even after the lapse of time limit, I note that as per Section 7(1) of the RTI Act, where the
respondent receives a request for obtaining information as made by an applicant under Section
6 of that Act, he shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case within thirty days of the
receipt of such request, either provide the information on payment of such fee as may be
prescribed or reject the request for any of the reasons specified in Sections 8 and 9 of that Act.
From the records made available to me, I find that the appellants abovementioned application
dated January 24, 2015, was received by the CAPIO at SEBI Lucknow Local Office, on
January 30, 2015. The CAPIO had forwarded the said application to the respondent, as
envisaged under Section 5(2) of the RTI Act. I note that as per the proviso to Section 5(2) of
the RTI Act, where an application for information is given to a CAPIO, a period of five days
shall be added in computing the period for response specified under Section 7(1) of that Act.
Page 1 of 2

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz

Upon a consideration of the aforementioned, I find that the respondent was required to
provide his response to the appellant's application on or before March 6, 2015 i.e. within thirty
five days of receipt of the application (or request for obtaining information). In this context, I
find that the respondent replied to the appellant's application vide his letter dated March 3,
2015, which was dispatched by Speed Post. In view of the factual situation, I find that the
respondent had provided his reply to the appellants application well within the time stipulated
under the RTI Act.
6.

In his response, I note that the respondent while invoking the provisions of Section 8(1)(h) of
the RTI Act, informed the appellant that the matter of SICCL was under examination and was
yet to reach a logical conclusion; therefore, disclosure of information at the present stage may
impede the process. In this context and upon a consideration of the aforementioned, I find
that disclosure of information prior to completion of examination would be premature to the
process of investigation. Accordingly, reliance is placed on the decisions of the Honble CIC in
the matter of Shankar Sharma and Ors. vs. Director General of Income Tax (Inv)-II & CPIO,
Department of Income Tax (Decision dated 10.07.2007); Smt. Durgesh Kumari vs. Income Tax Department
(Decision dated 26.8.2011), Shri. Vinod Kumar Jain vs. Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence,
New Delhi (Decision dated 20.07.2011), Shri Narender Bansal, Delhi vs. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.,
Delhi (Decision dated January 13, 2014), Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision dated November
28, 2014 in F. No. CIC/SM/A/2012/000196) and Shri Arun Kumar Agrawal vs. SEBI (Decision
dated December 19, 2014 in F. No. CIC/SM/A/2013/000834/MP). In view of the aforesaid, I
find no deficiency in the respondent's response.

7.

Without prejudice to the foregoing, upon a consideration of the appellant's request for
information as contained in her application in light of her appeal, 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 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 " 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.

8.

I, therefore, find that there is no need to interfere with the decision of the respondent. The
appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Place: Mumbai
Date: April 22, 2015

S. RAMAN
APPELLATE AUTHORITY
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 2 of 2

Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz