Appeal No.

4287 of 2021

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

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

Appeal No. 4287 of 2021

Anita Devi : Appellant

Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated February 24, 2021 (received by SEBI on March 02, 2021)
under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI Act”). The respondent, by a letter dated March 26, 2021,
responded to the application filed by the appellant. The appellant filed an appeal dated (Nil) (received by
the Office of Appellate Authority on June 01, 2021), against the said response dated March 26, 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 impugned response from the respondent is dated March 26, 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 (which was received on June 01,
2021). The first appeal has been made approximately one months after the last date permissible under the
RTI Act. The appellant neither made a request for condoning the said delay in filing the appeal nor made
any submission explaining the reasons which caused the delay. Considering the absence of a request for
condoning the delay and any valid reason that prevented the appellant from filing the 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 responses 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, in her application dated February 24, 2021, inter alia, sought
information regarding action taken by SEBI on her complaint filed on July 18, 2017and reminder dated

Page 1 of 3
 Appeal No. 4287 of 2021

December 07, 2019, pertaining to her unpaid claim against Folio No. 544….51 of LIC Nomura M.F. Ltd.
(company).

5. The respondent, in response to the application, informed that her compliant was taken up on SCORES
and the same was disposed of based on the information and records available including submissions of
Mutual Fund/Asset Management Company (AMC). The appellant was also advised to track/view
complete action history of her complaint on SCORES portal. The respondent also enclosed a copy of the
reply dated September 11, 2017 provided by the AMC.

6. Ground of appeal- On perusal of the appeal, it appears that the appellant is not satisfied with the response
provided by the respondent. The appellant, in her appeal, has provided information regarding purchase of
ULIS, payment history and details with respect to communication with the company etc. The appellant, in
her appeal, has requested to give necessary instruction to pay her claim with interest.

7. I note that the respondent, in response to the queries, has clearly provided the details of the action taken
by SEBI with respect to her complaint. I find that the respondent has adequately addressed the application
by providing the information available with him. Therefore, I find no deficiency in the respondent’s
response to the appellant’s application.

8. Further, the appellant, in her appeal, has raised grievance regarding non-payment of her claim amount. I
also note that the appellant has requested to give necessary instruction to pay her claims with interest. 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), held: “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 the
matter of Ravindra Mamgain vs. CPIO (Decision dated May 28, 2021), the Hon’ble CIC held that “Further,
the issue raised by the Appellant regarding the ……is a matter of grievance which cannot be adjudicated as far as mandate
of RTI Act is concerned.” Further, in the matter of Shri Matloob Ahmed vs. Delhi Police, East District (Decision
dated January 11, 2013), the Hon’ble CIC held: “The RTI Act cannot be used to make the respondent to do certain
things or to take certain action.” 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.

Page 2 of 3
 Appeal No. 4287 of 2021

9. 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.

Place: Mumbai ANAND BAIWAR

Date: July 01, 2021 APPELLATE AUTHORITY UNDER THE RTI ACT
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Page 3 of 3