Page 1 of 2

BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY

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

Appeal No. 2003 of 2014

Prem Dhanda : Appellant
Vs.
CPIO, SEBI, Mumbai : Respondent

ORDER

1. The appellant had filed an application dated August 1, 2014, under the Right to Information
Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "RTI Act"). The respondent vide letter dated August 19,
2014, responded to the appellant. The appellant has filed this undated appeal (received at SEBI
on September 17, 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 his
application wherein he had raised the following query

"A cheating has been committed by the company ["Indus Car & Air Rentals (India) Pvt. Ltd."] to
the tune of 960.00 Crores. Many senior citizens have been cheated by this company based in New Delhi.
Complaints are lodged with EOW, Mandi Marg, New Delhi but we have not received any FIR pertaining to
our Complaints. You are hereby requested to kindly register this case and more documents can be produced, if
an appointment is given"
3. In this appeal, the appellant has narrated his grievance against the abovementioned company
and has requested that information as to which Government agency should be approached to
get justice, be provided to him.

4. In his response to the appellant's application, I note that the respondent inter alia informed him
that the information sought by him was in the nature of a grievance and hence, the same could
not be construed as 'information' under Section 2(f) of the RTI Act. 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
Brought to you by http://StockViz.biz
Page 2 of 2

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.

5. I, therefore, 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